Pre-Inquiry Meeting (PIM) Announced

The Planning Inspectorate have notified us that the PIM will be held at 2pm on Monday 20th April in Lancaster Town Hall. Its purpose is to help the Inspector and participants to prepare for the inquiry proper, and enable the proceedings to be conducted as efficiently and speedily as possible. It will determine how the evidence at the inquiry itself will be given, the running order and other practical matters like how long the inquiry will last. 

Planning Inspectorate Invites Centros Agents to Attend PIM

The Planning Inspectorate has written to the Centros agents, Montagu Evans, saying that they would very much welcome Centros being represented at the pre-inquiry meeting. If Centros have got any sense at all they certainly won't rely on our council to make their case for them.

As local tax payers are painfully aware, our council is no stranger to getting it completely wrong and wasting taxpayers money in the process. They have said that they will only set aside £50,000 to defend the Centros plans but we believe that the spectre of Blobbygate is raising its ugly head again. The district auditors report on the Blobbygate fiasco concluded that £2.5 million of taxpayers' money was wasted which included an estimated £1 million on an ill considered legal action against Noel Edmonds as this Independent article from September 2000 mentions.

This officer briefing note was sent to councillors prior to the full council meeting on Wednesday 8th April. In it, council officers say about the inquiry 'It is quite different from an Inquiry into an appeal against a refusal of planning permission in that the Planning Inspector would normally expect both the Local Planning Authority and the Applicant to appear to make the case in favour of the grant of permission'. Ignoring the grammatically ambiguous meaning of this comment, the implication is that the Planning Inspector would not normally expect both the Local Planning Authority and the Applicant to appear at a call-in inquiry.

We would certainly like to know of any other call-in case where the Applicant (in this case Centros) did not appear as the Applicant. To the best of our knowledge this has never happened before, but if it has, it is certainly not normal. However, this is typical of the way Lancaster council officers have misled councillors from the very beginning. It is a pity that the 11-plus educational level of many councillors lays them open to such disingenuity and perhaps goes some way to explain the infamous Blobbygate debacle.

Centros in Portsmouth

Trouble is afoot in Portsmouth, as explained in this Property Week article of 18th March 09. Centros's 'detailed review' of the Portsmouth scheme in light of the economic downturn and asking for their development agreement to be extended for another five years shows that they want to hang on to the land without being obliged to start work on the site. This could result in a huge dead zone in the city centre for up to five years, which could not be developed by anyone else.

In Lancaster's case, SAVE has commissioned architects Richard Griffiths to come up with an alternative development scheme more sympathetic to Lancaster's Historic townscape. Richard Griffiths plan to put on a public display of their plans in Lancaster sometime in May. If Centros pulls the same trick in Lancaster as in Portsmouth, past experience has shown us that our council would fall over themselves to oblige them, which would be a disaster for the city.

The Dukes Theatre, the Grand Theatre and the Musicians Coop should take note of what is happening with the Centros development in Portsmouth. Centros have already publicly said that they do not want to appear at the Lancaster inquiry because some of the 'community benefits' would be jeopardised as this article from Property Weekexplains which shows what would be first on the chopping block.