Government funding has fallen short, so how will Blackpool’s regeneration chief Doug Garrett redevelop? By David Quinn

When is a £300m government funding package not a £300m government funding package? The answer can be found in Blackpool, buried in the debris of the government’s abandoned policy on supercasinos.

Scrabble around in the wreckage, and the headline figure of £300m promised by the government in response to the Blackpool Task Force is not all that it seems. For once all the money that has previously been announced by the government is taken out of the equation, Blackpool is actually left with no more than £50m.

That, at least, is the view of Doug Garrett, the highly experienced, straight-talking and – one has to assume – deeply patient chief executive of the ReBlackpool urban regeneration company.

“If you look at the figures, £100m is Building Schools for the Future money, which has already been rolled out nationally. £100m is for transportation – the guts of it to do with the tramway – which had already been announced. £87m is for the sea defence scheme – and that’s been under construction for two years,” he says.

“There is £35m in relation to new housing, which is new and is welcome – but won’t touch the amount that’s needed.”

Persistent drizzle

An estimated £4m will be added to the coffers as part of separate government “Sea Change” funding for coastal towns, announced earlier this month. Overall, though, the situation remains as frustrating as the persistent drizzle that ruins EG’s spring day trip to Blackpool.

Nonetheless, Belfast-born Garrett is looking on the bright side. “This money isn’t a final offer. It’s a case of saying how the government can work with us further. There are possibilities and positives around new employment. Hazel Blears MP is looking at quarterly reviews.”

Lancashire agents are also staying cautiously positive. “It’s not as gloomy as predictions first suggested at the start of the year and, although government funding may have slowed down, private investment is continuing to roll in,” says Danny Pinkus, partner at Preston-based Robert Pinkus & Co. “The outlook for Blackpool is looking rosy as long as regeneration stays focused.”

The Blackpool Task Force, led by Blears as secretary of state for communities and local government, was formed in March 2007 following the decision of the Casino Advisory Panel two months earlier to recommend Manchester – not Blackpool – for the UK’s sole supercasino.

Garrett now admits that, in hindsight, Blackpool could never have landed the supercasino. The criteria the CAP was given by the government focused on social effects. As the only town in the eight-strong shortlist comprised otherwise of cities, Blackpool did not have a large enough resident population to become a reliable testing ground.

Garrett reveals that, prior to the sudden death last December of Professor Stephen Crow, the planning inspector who chaired the independent panel, Crow admitted as much to him.

“It was flawed legislation and a flawed approach,” Garrett says of the Gambling Act and subsequent supercasino beauty parade. “It was very badly handled, and it has produced a rather ridiculous situation.”

The government’s response to the Blackpool Task Force, of which ReBlackpool was a member, was published in February, on the same day Manchester’s supercasino was finally killed off.

It compensated Blackpool for the botched process and specified the need to improve the resort’s visitor offer, to serve a niche in the conference market and to improve the quality and mix of housing.

ReBlackpool, set up in 2005 in order to attract £1.6bn of investment to the town, shares these aims and remains focused on delivering its own masterplan, originally published in 2003.

One aspect of the plan was the creation of a supercasino, conference and leisure facilities on a 24-acre site that formerly housed the town’s Central Station. Garrett does not believe this focus on gambling renders the plan obsolete, however.

“The masterplan will be adapted, but we won’t be throwing it out and starting again. It’s not the gambling floorspace that’s important. It’s about retail malls and leisure attractions.It was that mix that we saw coming in,” he says.

Leisure quarter

The Central Station site occupies a plum location at the heart of the Golden Mile – a fact that Garrett points out as he weaves his 4×4 through the site’s surface-level car park. Central Station is still earmarked for development as a conference and leisure quarter and, elsewhere in town, a number of other regeneration projects are already taking shape (see panel).

Pinkus believes Central Station is crucial to Blackpool’s future. “One of Blackpool’s main concerns will be how to use the site that was earmarked for the casino,” he says.

“Talk of a new state-of-the-art conference centre will be an excellent and much-needed investment for Blackpool’s future. Quality investment across sectors, including retail, hotel and leisure, is required in order to increase Blackpool’s year-round appeal, and maybe even entice the political conferences back to the promenade.”

Given that Blackpool is home to the Big One – one of the tallest amusement rides in the world – Garrett cannot resist comparing Blackpool’s recent ups and downs with those of a roller coaster. However, he retains a pragmatic approach in the face of Blackpool’s malaise.

“The plans you lay down need to change,” he says. “We had an emphasis on casinos but we have to be flexible. We’ve put up a fight, but now we all need to move on and recognise where our energies need to be channelled.”

Estates Gazette

6/10/2007

Manchester council chief Sir Howard Bernstein is leading a final campaign to convince Gordon Brown that a super-casino is the only way to revive a rundown area of the city. David Quinn reports

After a run of bad luck, Manchester’s hopes of becoming home to the UK’s first super-casino looked dead and buried this summer. Not so, say the city’s council leaders, who are this week launching a fight to secure the £250m entertainment scheme which they believe can – and must – be delivered.

It was in January that the independent Casino Advisory Panel surprised almost everyone by recommending Manchester over favourites Blackpool and the Millennium Dome in east London as the location for the UK’s sole super-casino. But since then, odds against its delivery have lengthened so much that the media have all but written off the development.

Key factors in the super-casino’s downfall were its rejection in the Lords in March (see panel, p87) and, crucially, the apparent antipathy of new prime minister Gordon Brown. When, after finally getting the keys to number 10, the Presbyterian Brown called for a review of the use of super-casinos as a means of delivering regeneration it was seen as the death knell for the initiative. In fact, what Brown had actually said on 11 July was that the project would be “subject to reflection”.

Media commentators suggest that the prime minister is keen to wash his hands of the super-casino because it plays badly in Daily Mail-reading Middle England, which Brown’s strategists are desperate to woo ahead of a possible late-autumn election.

But, with little fanfare, Brown instigated the inter-departmental review he promised. Manchester is a “constructive participant” in the review, which is led by the Department of Communities and Local Government and is expected to declare its findings within weeks. Brown is not expected to make a final decision until after an election, however, for fear of the political fallout.

For Sir Howard Bernstein, chief executive of Manchester city council, the fact that the review is happening at all is evidence that the government has an open mind about the future of the scheme. “There was speculation in the press about what was on the prime minister’s mind [following the July statement] but it’s clear that he wants a period of time to reflect,” says Bernstein.

“There’s no alternative”

The council’s contribution is a renewed drive to claw back the scheme it views as a hard-won prize. Bernstein rejects any suggestion that it should forget the super-casino and put its energies into alternative uses for the site it had prepared for the scheme at Sportcity in east Manchester.

“Manchester remains committed to supporting this scheme, and we’ll work hard with the government to make sure it’s delivered,” says Bernstein.

“Our submission is that there is no alternative strategy and there is no type of development, other than a super-casino, which can deliver the same level of benefit.”
To make its case, the council submitted a dossier, compiled by KPMG, listing a series of possible alternative uses for the cleared Sportcity site – all of which the dossier then pulls apart.

Casino-free leisure schemes are said to be “uneconomic”. Residential development is described as “antithetical to the role and function of the site”. Offices are “not sustainable without very significant public funding support”, while speculative development is described as “not realistic”. But the super-casino-led scheme meets with favour and is described as “wholly consistent with spatial and regeneration strategies”.

According to the dossier: “It is unlikely that there is any alternative use which can achieve the [regeneration] outcomes in east Manchester with no public subsidy, and generate a positive return for further regeneration.”

While this line of argument is open to question by the government in the battle ahead, the need for regeneration in east Manchester is undisputed. The council points out that around 33,000 jobs were lost in the area during the 1970s and 1980s and that more than 90% of the area’s 62,000 residents live in neighbourhoods ranked in England’s worst 10%.

The creation of a 675,000 sq ft mixed-use scheme anchored by a 53,800 sq ft super-casino would form the next phase in the area’s regeneration, creating 3,500 jobs, injecting £250m of capital investment and attracting 1.3m visitors pa, according to the council.

However, questions have been raised from across the political spectrum about whether a giant casino with unlimited-jackpot slot machines is really what this deprived area needs. Pressure groups such as Campaign Against Super-Casino Expansion claim super-casinos create “problem gambling” and will do little to benefit deprived communities. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also voiced concerns about “the sleight of hand by which the whole business of the gambling industry has become coupled with the regeneration theme”.

Bernstein dismisses such concerns, saying a super-casino would not be harmful to the area’s residents. “We are dealing with a casino that will become part of the most regulated section of gambling in the UK,” he says. “The evidence doesn’t support people’s opposition to casinos. These facilities, if done right, can be centres for economic growth.”

Bernstein refers to the recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007, conducted on behalf of the Gambling Commission by the independent National Centre for Social Research. Its key finding was that rates of problem gambling in the UK have not risen since 1999 and remain at 0.6% of the population.

He says this is “surprising” given the massive growth in the multi-million-pound online gambling industry during this period and believes it is therefore unlikely that a single super-casino in Manchester will have any significant effect on problem gambling.

Moreover, Bernstein warns that if the super-casino is not delivered, initiatives promoting responsible gambling will be set back. The council has pledged that section 106 agreements will stipulate that the successful super-casino developer must help fund gambling support groups and other such projects.

Bernstein is clearly up for a fight. “It’s going to be an entertaining process,” he chuckles. “The evidence in our favour is clear but public confidence has to be built up.”


How super-casino ball got rolling

2003 Manchester council opens competition for cleared 18.6-acre site next to City of Manchester stadium at Sportcity

2004 Kerzner International and Ask Developments selected to deliver mixed-use scheme anchored by a super-casino. Subsequently, the Gambling Act says the super-casino should be awarded by public tender, meaning Kerzner/Ask will have to re-bid in competition with other operators

2005 Gambling Act made law. One super-casino with a minimum gaming area of 53,800 sq ft will be built, alongside eight “large” and eight “small” casinos

2006 Casino Advisory Panel considers eight shortlisted locations. Blackpool and the Millennium Dome emerge as favourites

30 January 2007 CAP picks Manchester for the super-casino

28 March House of Lords rejects – by three votes – an order backing CAP’s decision to award Manchester the super-casino

11 July Prime minister Gordon Brown announces review, prompting speculation that the project is dead

6 October Manchester launches fightback as conclusion of review draws near

A staunch Blairite and supporter of the Iraq War, Hazel Blears MP is forthright and enthusiastic about the ongoing regeneration of Salford. David Quinn reports

Salford’s Working Class Movement Library prides itself on ignoring the “conventional history” of “kings, queens, generals and political leaders”. As such, the red-brick building at 51 The Crescent might not necessarily be the kind of place you would expect to find a fervently Blairite cabinet minister.

But Salford MP Hazel Blears, the Blairite in question, has her constituency office there. In the next room, posters, badges and mugs dating from the 1980s miners’ strikes, with slogans such as “Defend Union Rights Picket!” and “Coal Not Dole”, are abundant. Perhaps the fact that this spiky, Old Labour-infused trade union paraphernalia is locked away in a glass case an antique collection of interesting but irrelevant curiosities is significant.

It certainly presents a contrast with Blears’ unflinching and unapologetic New Labour persona, which is seen and heard so often on TV and radio. A staunch defender of the war in Iraq and the government’s controversial anti-terror legislation, she can accurately be described as an arch-loyalist of the government.

As she explains to EG, Blears is keen to put local communities at the heart of regeneration efforts especially regarding the vast changes taking place in her own constituency.

Blears is minister without portfolio, a role previously held by such heavyweights as Peter Mandelson, Charles Clarke and John Reid. In person, she is both relentlessly upbeat and also, on occasion, disarmingly forthright. Her enthusiasm for the ongoing regeneration of Salford is obvious, but it is clear that not every aspect of the process gets her seal of approval.

“Regeneration is always about a lot more than bricks and mortar,” says Blears. “If you look at the Ladywell flats in Salford, they were redeveloped four times, but after each time they went back to being a horrible place to live. Physical regeneration can be important, but you need to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, otherwise you are wasting your money.”

Changing perceptions

With a background at the Home Office that included community safety, policing and anti-social behaviour briefs, Blears’ standpoint is understandable. She is happy to acknowledge the “impact on people’s confidence” when their neighbourhoods are transformed by physical regeneration. But she pauses a little awkwardly when asked about the benefits to the community of Salford Quays, with its modern office blocks, half-million pound luxury apartments and, latterly, the Lowry arts centre.

“It’s been hugely important for our image outside Salford. It’s helped to shift perceptions enormously,” she begins, before opting for a change of tack. “I was concerned that the Lowry would really just be for middle-class people from Cheshire but that’s not the case. People in Salford are quite proud of the Lowry, and the Triathlon World Cup event has brought in thousands of people. So it’s perhaps not brought about the social division people may have been concerned about.”

One might, then, describe development at the Quays as having a positive “trickle-down” effect on local communities. But Blears frowns at this wording and, as if reminded of the political legacy that led to the slogan-filled relics in the next room, says she “hates that phrase” because “it’s very Thatcherite”. Instead, she says she prefers to look at the development of Salford Quays, and physical regeneration in general, as a “virtuous circle”.

“Developers are more likely to want to come into other parts of Salford because of the success of Salford Quays,” she explains.

The Quays is earmarked for a major relocation by the BBC in 2010, as part of Peel Holdings’ MediaCity:UK scheme, which is being championed by local urban regeneration company Central Salford. But the BBC is saying the move may not happen unless it can get a 1.8% rise above inflation in the licence fee settlement something to which the Department of Culture, Media & Sport has yet to agree.

Blears is, of course, keen to see the move happen, and says she is “lobbying intensively” on the issue. Her front-line government role gives her an inside track on the negotiations over the licence fee, although she stresses that she will make no formal intervention, other than as a local MP.

She makes it clear she is unimpressed with the BBC’s prevarication over the licence fee settlement and its attempts to use Salford as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. “It is entirely inappropriate,” she says. “The BBC said they would come here. The proposal we put to them is a fantastic opportunity for them and for us. They should fulfil the commitment they have made. It’s essential that
the scheme as envisaged happens in full. MediaCity is not just about the BBC coming here, that’s just one part. The scheme as a whole needs to have that integrity. It’s not sensible to pare it back.”

The MP is full of praise for the Central Salford URC, which, as well as wooing the BBC to Salford, has begun a series of proposals for the regeneration of Salford’s historic city core (see p182). The regeneration of the A6 Chapel Street, to reinforce links with central Manchester, is central to the URC’s proposals, and Blears approves.

“The A6 corridor is key,” she says. “It’s important we get the best high-quality development along Chapel Street. But we need to progress quickly because the contrast between the A6 and Manchester city centre is dramatic.”

Blears does not believe it is necessary for Salford to ape the offer of central Manchester. She notes that when she was growing up in Salford, a trip “into town” meant Manchester, rather than Salford.

“The URC’s approach, of ‘making Salford beautiful’ is the right way to go,” says Blears. “We are different,
we have lots of green space and yet we are close to a major metropolitan centre. You play to your strengths, rather than becoming a mirror image of a bustling city centre.”

Warning shot

She compares the relationship between Manchester and Salford with that between Minneapolis and St Paul in the US, joking that it sounds “romantic”.

The interview concludes with what Blears happily labels a “warning shot” to property developers about the role of local communities in regeneration. She confesses that EG is not her “usual reading material” but is clearly keen to ram home her agenda to those for whom it is.

“Throughout all the regeneration in Salford, the thing that’s made it successful and sustainable is the involvement of local people. You can’t regenerate just by building great buildings,” she says. “If you invest in local people you get better results and transformational, long-term change.”

Potential developers of tall buildings inLiverpool have a right to feel a little confused about the city’s rules on planning. Many in the property industry argue that recent episodes illustrate a lack of consistency over what is and what is not acceptable.

At the start the year, planners turned down Beetham Organisation’s plans for the 40-storey West Tower on Old Hall Street, but this decision was reversed in March when Beetham threatened a legal challenge to the refusal.

Now Maro Developments, which wants to build a 50-storey, Ian Simpson-designed tower at Brunswick Quay on the Liverpool waterfront, appears to be considering a similar approach to lever approval for its own scheme. Planners turned down its initial proposal in January but, in April, the developer resubmitted slightly revised plans featuring fewer flats and more commercial space. Its appeal against the council’s original decision will be heard in July 2006.

Some in the city suggest the council’s unpredictability on planning issues could repel potential developers and investors. “It doesn’t give a good impression of the city. There’s a confused message,” says Steve Moule, managing director of Liverpool developer Albany Assets, which is itself planning a 44-storey tower in central Manchester.

Chris Ives, development director of Maro, agrees. “The message is quite confused,” he says. “We know of arguments used to support the Beetham scheme, as well as Kings Waterfront, which have been rejected when used by us.”

In order to allay the confusion, the council is drawing up a policy document for the development of tall buildings in the city. The consultation process is now complete, and a final report is likely to go before the council’s executive board next month.

According to the draft document, there are three areas where skyscrapers will be most suitable. One is the commercial district of central Liverpool, another the so-called “southern approach” around the junction of Sefton Street and Parliament Street, and the third around Lime Street.

Importantly, however, the council says the policy document will not provide an automatic planning green light for all tower developments proposed in these areas. Each scheme will be examined on its own merits within the city’s wider planning framework.

This means Rumford Investments’ Unity scheme, under construction but arguably outside all three zones, would not necessarily be turned down under the new regime. Nor would Maro’s proposed scheme at Brunswick Quay. Conversely, Chieftain Construction’s proposed 32-storey mixed-use tower at the junction of Skelhorne Street and Bolton Street, adjacent to Lime Street, would not automatically be approved.

Planning application

As Peter Millea, the council’s executive member with responsibility for regeneration, puts it: “Each planning application will be treated separately. Some applications for tall buildings in these areas may not be acceptable and, conversely, others outside these areas may be approved in exceptional circumstances.”

Given these disclaimers, critics might query what the purpose of the policy document actually is. Others, however, believe that it is only right that some attempt at zoning is carried out. “The Liverpool skyline is revered, and rightly so,” says Steve Unwin, head of the Liverpool office of architect AFL, which is designing the 26-storey Alexandra Tower for Millennium Estates and the 20-storey City Lofts tower, both on the waterfront.

He continues: “There’s a lot of regeneration money coming into Liverpool, and it’s a difficult task making sure quality prevails. To zone things is a good philosophy. Sporadic development would not be good for the city.”

Developers, however, are slightly less enthusiastic in their support. Moule warns: “A policy document is a good idea, but it needs involvement from everyone, including developers. There needs to be a consensus.”

Ives adds: “I agree some strategy needs to be proposed, but it’s dangerous if you draw a red line and say tall buildings are only acceptable in certain areas. Each application needs to be judged on its merits.”

An added difficulty for policy makers comes from heritage body UNESCO, which is believed to be considering a ban on tower development in world heritage sites. Much of the waterfront and commercial core of Liverpool attained this status last year.

Unsurprisingly, developers and agents believe development should be allowed to go hand in hand with preserving Liverpool’s heritage. Ian Tomlinson, head of residential at Jones Lang LaSalle’s Manchester office, which is advising several clients on tower development in central Liverpool, says: “The World Heritage Site shouldn’t prohibit development per se. But it does mean that architectural quality needs to be raised above the normal level.”

Ives agrees. “Look at Berlin and Madrid,” he says. “A blend of old and new buildings can be achieved within a world heritage site as long as it’s well done.”