East Accrington/phoenix projects... - Page 6

Graham Jones · 22-05-2005, 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by park381

I refered to the problems HBC had with the contractors on the new build broadway development not the proposed refurbishment of the central area, which should have been included in the new build project any way. The contractors should have been made to put right the enabling work they did to facilitate the new build. Why should public money be used to put something right that should have been part of the new build contract in the first place.

Sorry it wasn't clear what you meant but your right and thats another story.

I remember first getting elected in 2002 and we were weeks off what the americans would call closure. The development was finallly finished in May 2003.

Everyone had doubts in the LG about the MSD scheme, but yet so much money had been invested already and goimg back seemed a massive negative decision. Lets be clear however, we would not have built it in the first place - that was unanimous within the Lab group to my knowledge. The issue was though inherited at a late stage. HBC would have had to carry all costs were the scheme curtailed and they were sizeable.

No-one really knew how bad it would turn out to really be and optimists abounded, particularly Conservatoves and Mr Rix. Mr Rix was a popular chap back then. He seduced doubters for HIS and the Conservatives flagship project now that Labour had control. The option of pulling out would have led to intense political hostilty, as well as picking up the costs, about running Accrington down so it was then a lose lose situation.

And every time there were rumours or doubts emerging and a chance of debating scrapping the scheme, Mr Rix would would hurridly turn up with some late long winded report you didnt have time to read or properly digest that would contain some answer that was apparently around the corner.

The crises point came when the critical 75% floorspace occupancy couldnt be reached pre development. JJB had been coveted to fill the upper floor but that wasnt enough. It was all down to Wilkies premises. I was wishing at the time they wouldn't then the project would have sunk. It did appear unlikely that the store would be filled and the scheme collapse. However Wilkies finally stepped in.

We also had discussions about Broadway and the wreckage. Mr Rix would never be persuaded by anyone but himself. Set against a backdrop [and the shock] of bancruptcy laid out in the DeLoitte Touche report on HBC, the Lab group found the council was spiraling out of control. The MSD was just one smaller problem and perhaps not enough attention, understandably, was given to it. At the same time Mr Rix still had supporters and he was a magnificent charmer to the simple minded. Within months Ian Ormerod the leader had had a heart attack largely put down to the pressure and size of problems he inherited.

Mr Rix could never properly explain why Broadway was trashed. Evertime we had the conversation I was accused of having a go at him and he talked at length and around the subject to avoid giving an answer. My opinion was he had to control EVERYTHING and he had that many balls in the air at once, this is one he inevitably dropped. In the end he dropped a few and people saw the light.

Wilkies was the make or break as MR Rix, despite promises, assurances etc.. had failed to fill any of the smaller units and he needed to fill several to meet the 75% floor space criteria. I believe the Jack Walker Foundation was resolute in this and in the schemes viabilty and I think they were close to pulling funding. Such was the poor financial outlook in the beginning, no commercial backers would get involved until The Jack Walker Foundation stepped in to take what I believe is a third share. That should have been noted more carefully but powerful forces wanted the scheme.

The WFT indicated that unless HBC could prove they could deliver the 75% occupancy they would pull out. It was all about Mr Rix and his business acumen after that. When he finally persuaded Poundland to sign up [dont laugh!!] he lauded it to everyone trying to buy time to fill Wilkies. In the end it came down to Wilkies because that one store would make the 75% and there was no chance with the smaller units being let, time was running out.

I would like to know how the original Market Square Development was scratched and redesigned. If you rememeber the original plan it was that, an open market square surrounded on 4 sides by shops. How did it end up like it did and what role did JJB have in changing those plans? And how much do we own now? I believe its 33% which is down from the old market where we had 100% ownership. And what is its true value? Have we lost money on this project?

mez · 22-05-2005, 08:39

thank you graham & park 381 for a very informative dialogue, it is most interesting.

park381 · 22-05-2005, 08:42

I agree that one is another story, but it just shows the lack of control HBC had on a development in the town centre, and the fear is that this will happen again with the phoenix projects.

Graham Jones · 22-05-2005, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by park381

I agree that one is another story, but it just shows the lack of control HBC had on a development in the town centre, and the fear is that this will happen again with the phoenix projects.

A lot of much better work is being done on Phoenix now BwD have taken over from Mr Rix [who had to many balls in the air again!]. I/we would like to see much more done, more quickly and with more focus. The scheme IMHO is still dragging its feet in Proj Phoenix[s].

Graham Jones · 22-05-2005, 09:58

Just read that Gordon Brown is to financially help first time buyers afford housing through a new scheme. I am really sceptical about this. Its like the 50 year mortgage solution, injecting more money causes house prices to rise further. Having a massive new build programme will help increase supply and lower demand and that will work but where this govt has got it wrong is in its obsession with private ownership which means free market prices determined by the market.

I think they should be looking at part rent part buy, affordable housing owned by Housing Associations or Councils [ie their motive is cheap supply and not maximum profit] which offers first time households a choice of a low rent against a high mortgage. Enough choice will force the private sector to pitch its prices a bit lower and more realistic.

park381 · 22-05-2005, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Jones

I think they should be looking at part rent part buy, affordable housing owned by Housing Associations or Councils [ie their motive is cheap supply and not maximum profit]

Thought HBC were in the process of trying to ofload their council houses, because they can't afford to carry out the required repairs or upgrades. Have BwD not done the same thing, are their council houses not now under twin valley?

park381 · 22-05-2005, 10:28

A good example of proposed housing refurbishment in Manchester http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/us.php - go to "in the pipeline" Gt. Manchester - Langworthy

chav1 · 22-05-2005, 19:39

i think for my next home i will just buy the bricks and build it my self

house prices are ridiculous , banks will have to allow borrowing of 5x your anual income if it carrys on at this rate lol

park381 · 22-05-2005, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

i think for my next home i will just buy the bricks and build it my self

house prices are ridiculous , banks will have to allow borrowing of 5x your anual income if it carrys on at this rate lol

No, I think the housing market is slowing down, prices are leveling out, see grahams post Gorden Brown and the new morgage deal for first time buyers

entwisi · 23-05-2005, 06:44

It doesn't reduce the cosy of the house, only making it so that they can have part ownership in one. And who owns the other bits, Banks and the goverment. Who would benefit from house prices rising? Oh yep, Banks and the goverment. You also have to pay rental on the portion you don't own.

park381 · 23-05-2005, 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by entwisi

It doesn't reduce the cosy of the house, only making it so that they can have part ownership in one. And who owns the other bits, Banks and the goverment. Who would benefit from house prices rising? Oh yep, Banks and the goverment. You also have to pay rental on the portion you don't own.

That is correct.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4570045.stm

folly · 23-05-2005, 08:43

i heard there was some houses in darwen, that the council had someone to go check out. he was only stood in the door way of the rooms for a couple of minutes. when the people got the report back from the council all the houses was beond repair and cheaper to knock down than repair. the people not happy about this got there own survey done .the worst house only needed a few thousand spent to get it back to standed this was another plot for the council to build new houses. i saw part of a program where the council was knocking down streets upon streets.all terrace houses. the council said that it will cost £18,000 to knock down each house. the program picked one house that belonged to someone, but know one had lived in it for years as you can imagine it was in a mess. it cost them £25.000 to do it up. so at the end of the day it would only cost £7.000 to do up a house if you deducted the price of knocking it down. how much would it cost to build new?

cashman · 23-05-2005, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by folly

i heard there was some houses in darwen, that the council had someone to go check out. he was only stood in the door way of the rooms for a couple of minutes. when the people got the report back from the council all the houses was beond repair and cheaper to knock down than repair. the people not happy about this got there own survey done .the worst house only needed a few thousand spent to get it back to standed this was another plot for the council to build new houses. i saw part of a program where the council was knocking down streets upon streets.all terrace houses. the council said that it will cost £18,000 to knock down each house. the program picked one house that belonged to someone, but know one had lived in it for years as you can imagine it was in a mess. it cost them £25.000 to do it up. so at the end of the day it would only cost £7.000 to do up a house if you deducted the price of knocking it down. how much would it cost to build new?

perhaps theres not the same BACKHANDERS in doin the sensible thing !

park381 · 23-05-2005, 14:54

Looks like the phoenix project has started, went past Antley this morning, large signs up and several United Utilites vans there.

Wonder how much the demolition contractor will sell the dressed stone and roof slates for

Graham Jones · 24-05-2005, 04:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by folly

i heard there was some houses in darwen, that the council had someone to go check out. he was only stood in the door way of the rooms for a couple of minutes. when the people got the report back from the council all the houses was beond repair and cheaper to knock down than repair. the people not happy about this got there own survey done .the worst house only needed a few thousand spent to get it back to standed this was another plot for the council to build new houses. i saw part of a program where the council was knocking down streets upon streets.all terrace houses. the council said that it will cost £18,000 to knock down each house. the program picked one house that belonged to someone, but know one had lived in it for years as you can imagine it was in a mess. it cost them £25.000 to do it up. so at the end of the day it would only cost £7.000 to do up a house if you deducted the price of knocking it down. how much would it cost to build new?

This has been challenged as you say. BwD were using Housing Act CPOs - an unfit property - to demolish homes. However a minute assessment was never going to stand up once residents got legal support. Hyndburn is using T&C Planning Act CPOs which are are aquired not because of the house is unfit - but because a major regneration scheme which is deemed beneficial is planned. This of course does involve much public consultation [and a public enquiry] and can take 2 years to go through whereas Housing Act CPOs decalre an individual property unfit and can be seen to be used more quickly and more individually.