IAN BARKER: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH COUNCIL LEADER
First published: 21/8/06 Last Updated 21/8/06

Lancaster City Council is one of the area's largest employers and its activities -- from recycling to planning, tourism to economic development -- are rarely out of the news.

As controversy rages over the Canal Corridor development, the fate of Lancaster and Morecambe town halls and many other matters, we asked Council leader Ian Barker if he would answer many of the questions being raised by our readers, which he kindly agreed to do.

This is the first part of his response to many questions you have posed, addressing concerns about the Lancaster Canal Corridor development and a lot more besides. Ian will respond to the other questons we received -- which included concerns about Luneside and ccycle paths -- at a later date. (We received a huge number, perhaps the biggest response to an appeal to our readers ever!)

Some questions posed by readers covered similar areas. If your seprcific question isn't addressed it may have been merged with another, or be one Ian will answer later. Bookmark this page to check for updates.

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS

Why is regeneration in the area seen as being reliant on retail and increased traffic when these are clearly becoming more and more environmentally unsustainable?
Emilie Secker

The premise of this question is incorrect. Perhaps I can list some of the regeneration and economic development projects the Council, with partners such as the NWDA and English Partnerships is involved in.
• The regeneration of the Luneside East site This involves decontamination brownfield land the creation of new homes and work spaces close to the city centre. The intention is to produce a development that minimises the need to travel. There is no retail element.
• The Bailrigg Science Park The intention is to capitalise on the University. Its probably the major economic asset of the area, but we need to make sure that Lancaster people benefit from it. Again no retail.
• Citylab in Dalton Square This is serviced office space in the city centre designed to assist new company start-ups, particularly those with high IT content.
• Storey Institute We have had some difficulties with putting together all the funding streams we need for this but, hopefully, we can still put together a package that will allow us to develop workspace for creative industries in an important and underused Lancaster building. Again not retail.
• Port of Heysham Creating new serviced land for employment. Again not retail.
• West End Regeneration Housing related regeneration. Improving housing, particularly Houses in multiple occupation and creating a more stable community. Again not retail.
• Midland Hotel Obviously not retail in itself. Regeneration of the central promenade that should follow on will have primarily leisure-related uses at ground floor level and this could include some retail.

Of course I am aware that some people oppose some or all of the above as well as the Canal Corridor development. But we do need to generate employment opportunities in the district. We have three or four economic assets that we need to capitalise on: the University; the Port of Heysham; the role of Lancaster as a service centre for south Cumbria; and the tourism potential of the whole district.

How does a retail development that makes Lancaster a clone of countless small city centres give the city a competitive edge when larger cities will have everything we can offer plus more (Manchester, Preston)?
Jasper Neely

There is no intention to compete with Manchester, which is an important regional centre. I certainly do want to provide people in Lancaster district and its natural catchment area with the opportunity to shop in Lancaster instead of Preston or the Trafford Centre.

There is evidence that this leakage is already happening and in itself that constitutes a threat to the viability of the existing centre. (Incidentally the Lancaster district as a whole has a slightly larger population than the Preston district.) Why should the jobs associated with this go elsewhere?
What Centros Miller is proposing is a mixed development including cultural facilities, housing (including affordable housing) and open space. It is not just retail and car parking. Planning Committee will decide whether this fulfils the detail of development brief for the site but I believe it has the potential to do so.

Does Mr Barker know anything about sustainable development e.g. in the case of city's design that involves its inhabitants and takes into account their basic needs? Does he support the Sustainable Communities Bill [see notes, right, on this Bill - Ed] as 332 cross party MPs do? If he does how can he support this development that takes no accountant of traffic causing ill-health, lack of involvment causing alienation from democratic involvment and lack of an overall plan causing chaos to the long-term happiness and wealth of its citizens?
Wendy Haslam

Yes, I am aware of the Bill and would support it. I don't accept this description of the process surrounding the Canal Corridor Development. There has been a great deal of consultation and involvement. It is important to recognise that there was a full public consultation on the development brief for the site following the failure of the previous Chelverton scheme. This was before Centros Miller came on the scene and it was given wide publicity. Centros Miller have consulted as part of their master planning approach, something that previous potential developers did not do. The Government Office for the North-West is taking an interest in this process and those consultations will be reported as part of the planning process.

Sustainable development principles are at the heart of the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Lancaster Local Development Framework that are both being developed at the moment. As I am sure you are aware, sustainability encompasses economic and social dimensions as well as environmental ones. Planning policy both at regional and district level needs to take into account all these aspects of sustainability.

At both levels, policies about retail development aim to concentrate expansion into existing town centres rather than creating out of new town shopping destinations. I am sure this is the right policy. In North Lancashire and Cumbria the Regional Spatial Strategy suggests a policy of restraint on out of town developments and suggests that Lancaster, Carlisle and Barrow act as the main service centres.

As well as a regional shopping hierarchy, the Local Development Framework also seeks to preserve a local one. Within the district, the White Young Green study looked at Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth. It is very clear from that Lancaster already acts as the principal retail area for comparison (non-food) goods for the whole district including people who live in Morecambe and Heysham. Morecambe is second only for the people living in Morecambe and Heysham; from other parts of the district people prefer to travel out of district if they do not shop in Lancaster.

So in terms of sustainability, in all three aspects, I think it is right to concentrate new comparison retail development in Lancaster. Provided the scale of the expansion is right, it should satisfy all three criteria: protecting the economic viability of town centres; sustaining jobs and access to shopping for people without access to cars; and reducing journeys to out town of centres.

In this country we are consuming approximately 3 times our share of the worlds sustainable resources and we desparately need to stop this. Creating 60% more retail outlet space is eco-suicdal, so why support killing ourselves and others?
Chris Hart

I would dispute 60% figure in Chris Hart's question. It relies on a narrow definition of the Lancaster Centre that excludes Sainsbury's, B&Q, Comet, Halfords and Currys and some judicious arithmetical rounding. Nevertheless, I accept that what is proposed by Centros Miller is a very significant expansion.

I do not understand Chris Hart's objections to sustainable consumption. Surely, from a green point of view it's unsustainable consumption that is the problem. I think we need to look at our patterns of consumption to make them more sustainable. Adopting a hair-shirt approach that says consumption per se needs to be reduced is not an attitude I share.

While the UK is a prosperous nation there are plenty of people in Lancaster who don't share fully in that prosperity. I'm not prepared to deny them access to more sustainable consumption or to the jobs that will enable them to achieve that.

How can the council justify the privatisation of more and more space in the city through various 'development' projects, when the job of the council is to administer the city for public, not private, good?
Dr Noel Cass

I'm not sure what privatisations Dr Cass refers to. The City Council owns very little land in the city centre. For example, we do not own the land on which either the Marketgate or St Nicholas Arcades developments are built. In the case of the Canal Corridor Development it is intended that the Council will retain the freehold and exert an element of control over the development though the terms of the lease as well as through its planning powers.

General Questions

I am all for development! 'Fast Track' is a very good concept and has its place I am sure in the Council Planning process. But can we really afford to take the chance on such an important development to the City? My practice specialises in high technology development all around the world, but the key factor is in the initial proposal & feasibility, which one can not afford to get wrong. We cannot afford to say that we can 'fix it' later in the detailed planning, as it never works!
Guy Chamberlain (MIET), Automation Design Systems Ltd

I agree that it's better to get things right in concept. That's why there is a lengthy master planning process with several iterations before a planning application is produced. Fast Track does not mean that any of that will be by passed. It does mean that there is early engagement with Government Office to see if there are any apparent problems so they can be addressed before we get in to an adversarial arena like an inquiry.

You will remember as well as I that what started Labour on the road to power in Lancaster in the later 1980s was a massive community revolt over faceless city centre developments which Labour championed. Then as now people wanted to keep the historic environment and human scale of Lancaster, and planners and developers learned enduring lessons about what is truly valuable in a city.
I cannot understand therefore why Labour is now promoting a plan which will destroy the delightfully varied curve of late Georgian buildings at the bottom of Moor Lane, which even in the dark days of the 1980s was identified as a "key townscape feature" to be preserved. The developers have offered a slew of evasive and contradictory justifications (none of the individual buildings is very valuable; we must consider the townscape as a whole) which years ago would have had you and your Labour colleagues raging.
I'm broadly in favour of development on this site, but why are you insisting that the wonderful Georgian vista at the bottom of Moor Lane must be destroyed? If a Labour council won't stand up to the developers who will?
Robert Poole

I am not sure I agree with you about the quality of these buildings, but I am certainly not insisting on removing them. The idea of a pedestrian bridge is however in the development brief. Centros Miller have said that they want their development to be connected on a continuous pedestrian route to the existing town centre and I can understand the reasons for that. They are also looking to open out the area at the bottom of Moor Lane to make it more of an accessible and usable space.

I am a self-employed business woman in Lancaster. I welcome the idea that Lancaster might at last attract a top name department store. From my perspective this would be good for the city. It would pull shoppers in from South Lakeland and reduce the number of trips south to Preston, that at present, Lancaster and Morecambe shoppers have to do in order to find a big name retail department store.
I understand the opposition to the scheme from local residents, but if the city is to go forward it has to attract inward investment. It can't survive on local "arts" communities.
Having said all that I'd like to ask Ian Barker his views on the plans for the canal corridor development and what in his opinion the City would need to do, if the proposed development doesn't go ahead.
Jo Etheridge

I agree with Jo Etheridge's general point of view.

I do think Lancaster does need an expansion in retail capacity as I have set out in previous answers. Even if we only to retain the market share that we currently have and stop the leakage to other centres then a fairly substantial expansion is justified. We do need the jobs that it will create. The recent loss of 250 jobs at Reebok and 100 at Courtaulds ought to be a reminder of that. But if we are to reverse the leakage from our natural catchment area we need something like the department store that Lancaster has lacked.

Nevertheless, I would not support a retail only scheme in the area. I think the site needs a mixed development that realises development brief aspirations for a cultural quarter, has open space and some housing. I don't equate what Centros Miller are proposing with the previous big box retail development planned by Chelverton. It offers far more in terms of public benefit.

For some people that is not enough. However they have to ask whether they will be able to get a better deal from someone else. A mere wish list isn't an alternative. The site has been an unattractive expanse of car parks for over forty years. It results from the demolition of terraced housing and it was intended that an inner relief road that was never built. I hope we will not end up with that situation indefinitely.

Of course, as I repeatedly emphasise, the proposals can only gain planning consent if they show that they conform to the planning brief, which I think they have the potential to do, and that they demonstrate that they have a solution to handling the traffic, which is based on detailed modelling, and a robust assessment of retail capacity. These will have to stand up to external scrutiny.

Why was a retail led development of the Canal Corridor chosen ahead of, for example, attracting a major service sector employer into town eg insurance or banking to the site. That kind of employer would create a larger number of full-time well paid salaried jobs. I note that 4500 people have just graduated on the Lancaster University campus, and surely it would be better to create jobs for the home grown graduate market rather than droves of part-time low skill jobs in the retail sector?
Simon Cresswell, Windermere Road, Lancaster

I agree that graduate retention could be an important source of economic growth in the City. The North West in general and Lancaster in particular exports graduates to the South. I agree we should try to reverse this. Perhaps you could look at the answer I gave to Emilie Secker above. You will see that the City Council is trying to promote different sorts of employment including high tech and high skill jobs. However, I think we need other sorts of jobs too for reasons I outline below.

If we look at the level of educational qualifications in the district some interesting facts emerge. Despite the large number of students and academics living in the area, Bulk ward only has average levels of adults with Level 2 qualifications (GCSE). That must mean the local average disguises significant number of adults with relatively low qualifications. The situation is worse across the river in Skerton and in most of Morecambe and Heysham where the levels of such qualifications are significantly below the national average.

We need to provide employment opportunities for people with lower qualifications as well as graduates. While I want to see us make more use of the presence of the University in generating spin-out jobs, and support the development of a Bailrigg science park to do this, we must create other opportunities too.

Why did no-one from the cabinet Labour group attend the public meeting held recently about the development? Didn't they think a public meeting relating to the whole future of the city was of any concern?
Anonymous

You ask why I was not at the meeting on 10th July. I would have liked to have been there and sent my apologies, but the reason is very simple. I had another meeting. The Labour Group meet on Monday evenings immediately prior to Council to discuss its Agenda. As Leader, it's not a meeting I can miss. We were discussing business of equal significance. Had I been approached earlier, I might have been able to make alternative arrangements, but the email from Its Our City only arrived in my mailbox at noon on Friday 7th July and the leaflet came through my letterbox at home somewhat later. I think if the organisers really had wished me to be present they would have checked on my availability somewhat earlier.

Questions about development partners

Why were Centros Miller granted preferred bidder status when no other developer's plans were invited? It's not really good enough to say that Centros Miller were planning to develop the old Mitchell's brewery site. Why were other tenders not invited?
Ian Wilson

This is a reasonable point, but one that is not backed up by experience. The Kingsway site is an example. The previous Cabinet appointed the developer after just such a process. This was a competitive tendering process with a fairly open planning brief. Nothing about what has happened (or not happened) gives me confidence in such a process. The problem is that once the developer is chosen the proposals for the site are more or less fixed. However, sometimes the developer cannot or will not deliver what was promised because the price they offered was too high.

Previous attempts to attract a developer for the Canal Corridor produced a proposal that did not, in my view, fulfil the council and community aspirations as set out in the Local Plan and development brief.

Centros Miller having acquired an interest in the Mitchell's land approached the Council and expressed a willingness to work within the development brief. The advantage of working with them as preferred developer is that they are able to adopt a master planning process and go through a number of rounds of consultation before producing a final scheme.

Of course appointing a preferred developer without a competitive tendering exercise does place an obligation on the Council to demonstrate by other means that it is obtaining 'best value'. In order to do this the Council obtained independent valuation advice to make sure that we would be acting properly and prudently in awarding preferred developer status.

How do you feel about being identified by Steve Bryson of Halogen as a probable 'champion' of the Centros Miller scheme? If you are indeed championing this scheme, isn't this a conflict of interest when your duty is to the people of Lancaster who elected you, and not to outside interests?
Emilie Secker

I have no conflict of interest. I do not regard myself as a 'champion' for Centros Miller. I think their proposals have potential to fulfil the development brief for the site and for that reason we should proceed to the next stage. I have no relationship whatsoever with them that would in anyway compromise my ability to deal objectively as a councillor with matters relating to the Canal Corridor.

What appals me about this question is that there seems to be a concerted effort to put about the innuendo that I am acting improperly. This is the third time I have had to deal with this suggestion since the Its Our City meeting.

If you cannot accept that I can disagree with you without having some sort of improper motive for doing so, then I suggest its you that have the problem not me.

The council should insist that the primary purpose for the development of the site should be for the benefit of the citizens of Lancaster. Is the council not able to say that the development will go no further unless or until Centros Miller give legally binding assurances that those conditions are met? If Centros Miller fails to do so there will be other developers who will. Such conditions would, like a hanging, concentrate minds.
Ian Wilson

As indicated in previous answers, there are not developers queuing up to develop the site in line with the planning brief. The development agreement will offer significant public benefits and will be legally binding.

The hideous development on the Kingway site makes it very difficult to trust the City Council to be able to have the vision and tenacity to ensure that the larger canalside development will enhance Lancaster. My question for Ian Barker is - 'If an agreement is signed with Centros Miller or any other developer what public consultation will there be and how much say will the people of Lancaster (and the council) have in the end result.'
Helen Easton

I agree with you about the Kingsway development. I was around at the time the previous Cabinet drew up the planning brief and chose a developer and I opposed it. It's a piecemeal development of a site, nothing has been agreed for the southern end which resulted in the opportunity to improve traffic conditions on Back Caton Road being lost. Councillor Bryning and myself were prominent in arguing against it; we were virtually the only councillors who did. I am determined that those mistakes are not repeated which is why we are looking at a very different sort of development agreement. For example the previous Cabinet sold the freehold of that site. In the case of the canal Corridor we will retain the freehold of the 40% we own and have the remaining 60% vested in us. The terms of the lease will give us some control over the lettings policy and the future of the site.

It is important to recognise that there was a full public consultation on the development brief for the site following the failure of the previous Chelverton scheme. This was before Centros Miller came on the scene and it was given wide publicity. Centros Miller have consulted as part of their master planning approach, something that previous potential developers did not do. The Government Office for the North-West is taking an interest in this process and those consultations will be reported as part of the planning process. I would give greater weight to the consultations on the development brief rather than those carried out by a developer or a pressure group.

Why was the business agenda re. canal corridor exempt on the councils agenda for 25 July 2006? This is public land owned by the public and WE are the owners. This should be very public open information as we are the vendors and the council acts on our behalf?
Chris Hart

The usual reasons: the documents contained commercially sensitive information and legal advice to the Council. I did arrange for the debate on the first resolution to be in public.

Between Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny the legal advice was refined and large parts of section 3 of the report, which contained the sensitive information were made public. The legal advice in the appendices remained exempt

Traffic Questions
What are the likely environmental impacts - traffic, pollution and empty retail space in the existing city centre?
Jasper Neely

It has been estimated, using freely available databases, consulted by traffic planners as a matter of course, that an additional 10,734 car journeys will result from the proposed retail-led development. Why were these figures not calculated before Centros Miller's proposals reached this stage?
Ian Wilson

I am very pleased to hear about a development for the Canal Corridor, as this development is long overdue.
1. Has an estimate of the amount of extra traffic that the proposed development will bring; been calculated?
2. If it has been calculated, how will the additional traffic be accommodated? We are already congested!
3. If we do not have accurate figures for the traffic, then how can we say yes to the Centros Miller proposal?
Guy Chamberlain (MIET), Automation Design Systems Ltd

I would like to ask Ian Barker about how the proposed Canal Corridor Development can possibly go ahead when the developer have not given any hard & fast traffic data. Centros Miller say this is not available. (I would suggest that they do not like the results they have.) Councillor John Whitelegg, a renowned traffic expert, has done calculations using recognised traffic data packages & these suggest there could be an extra 10,000 car journeys per day! This would make Lancaster's already awful traffic problem even worse. (To my mind, common sense also leads to the same conclusion).
Andy Marsh, Denis Street

I will take the above four questions together as the all relate to traffic implications of the Centros Miller proposals. First some background.

There appears to be a widespread misconception that the Cabinet Meeting on 25th July was the final decision on the scheme. This is far from being the case. The meeting is primarily about developing further the framework of a financial agreement between Centros Miller and the Council about the terms on which land will be transferred. Any such financial agreement will be conditional on Centros Miller achieving planning consent. At the moment we are a long way from a formal planning application and there is a great deal of work to be done before one can be submitted.

The two crucial elements of concern are traffic and parking, and retail capacity. These will have to be resolved prior to any successful planning application. You can be assured that, if they are not resolved to my satisfaction, prior to a planning application then I will oppose it.

It is asserted that the development will generate an additional 10,000 journeys per day into the Lancaster City Centre. I understand this assertion comes from Councillor Whitelegg using the TRICS model. It seems implausibly high to me given that there are currently in the region of 50,000 round trips into Lancaster each day by car and that a high proportion of these will be journeys to work or on non-retail related business. To get to a figure like Councillor Whitelegg's one would have to assume the development was phenomenally successful in attracting extra business to Lancaster. I don't accept that Councillor Whitelegg can be treated as an independent traffic expert with respect to this application. His opposition is as predictable as Centros Miller's support for it.

The appropriateness of this method of calculating extra traffic has been strongly challenged by Centros Miller's traffic consultant. Basically their point is that in a shopping development with an anchor store like Debenhams, the different shops do not generate different shopping trips but people combine shopping at more than one outlet. Councillor Whitelegg's method of calculation does not take account of this and therefore leads to grossly exaggerated estimates of additional traffic. Clearly there is a disagreement which needs to be resolved. I don't intend to rely on any of the above (including my own scepticism about Councillor Whitelegg's claims). It can only be done on the basis of detailed traffic modelling which is subject to independent appraisal. You will see below that this will be required as part of the planning process.

Centros Miller still have not completed the master plan. They have put forward details of what they propose on site including car parking. The multi-storey car park will replace the existing car parking and increase by it 400-500 places. I assume this is based on their knowledge of similar developments.

Centros Miller have not completed their work on traffic flows to and from the development. They have engaged a firm of traffic engineers and have done a considerable amount of work, which was reported to the May consultations. However, although they have made some suggestions about solutions involving off site works, they have not yet demonstrated that this is a robust solution. Detailed numerical modelling work needs to be done and this is not complete. A satisfactory solution will have to be found if planning permission is to be granted.

What they have done so far is to obtain the PARAMICS model from Lancashire County Council. This is a detailed computer model of the traffic flows into and around Lancaster Town Centre. They have done additional survey work to update the model to reproduce the current traffic flows as Lancashire were using data that was a few years old.

They have some ideas which they claim will stop a lot of the traffic going round the gyratory system, will reduce traffic flows on Bulk Road and will enable easy access to their car park. Until these are numerically tested it is impossible to know whether they will work. However any work that they do do on the PARAMICS model will be independently scrutinised.

Public Consultation

Why has there been no credible independent research on citizens' wishes for the canal corridor apart from that conducted by Real Planning for Lancaster? Centros Miller's alleged survey was hopelessly skewed and even then found the majority of respondents were against retail-led development and in favour of greater arts/ leisure provision. Will the council fund such research before this application goes any further?
Ian Wilson

The premise of this question is incorrect. In response to Helen Easton above I pointed out the independent research into Citizen's wishes that was carried out in preparing the development brief.

Concerns developing from problems with past Council deals with business

Given the council's far from happy dealings with the private sector, (Noel Edmond's Unique Company's antics, the Bubbles farrago, the market, etc., etc., etc.), that have cost council tax payers millions of pounds, what assurances can you give voters that this latest rushed, poorly researched, environmentally disastrous and economically?
Ian Wilson

You raise the issue of financial risk and draw comparisons with Blobby. I am confident that the financial risk remains with the developer and not the Council. The point about Blobby was that those roles were reversed, the Council carried the risk and Unique were guaranteed their profit. I say that with some authority as the councillor identified by the District Auditor as a 'lone voice' urging financial caution.

I would also add that the Labour Group as a whole were the only group that was prepared to say load and clear that the Bubbles was financially unsustainable. It was the MBI Group supported by some others that were prepared to continue to try to rescue it.

Are you concerned that the Canal Corridor will become an issue during the local elections next year and that it could lead to you losing your seat?
Emilie Secker

I am sure it will be an issue. That's the nature of democracy.

Affects on Existing Business in Lancaster and Morecambe

Is there really the additional spending power to support new retail, surely it will mainly suck business from established shops in town?
Simon Cresswell, Windermere Road, Lancaster

John Barry argued convincingly at Cabinet that the proposed development flew in the face of the expensively commissioned research into retail provision, and proposed square footage in excess of double that suggested by the council's consultants. Centros Miller's proposals fly in the face of this and will compromise the integrity of that plan's provision for Morecambe and Carnforth. Councillor Barry rightly identified the matter of ownership of the land as separate from planning considerations and yet this was not considered. Why has this retail survey been ignored? -
Also: what evidence do you have that the new development won't move the city centre away from the traditional centre? i.e. with big stores like M&S and BHS moving to the new development, leaving behind empty shops, charity stores and pound shops. (And a general feeling of despondency.)
Alison Philp

What impact will the development have on both existing retailers and also local residents? Jasper Neely

The council's own retail development survey says that priority retail development should be in Morecambe and that the present proposals for the Canal Corridor are 4 times those needed for Lancaster? So why is Cllr Barker supporting this proposal? Chris Hart

I will take the above questions together as they relate to the issue of retail capacity and make some assertions about the White Young Green (WYG) retail study [PDF format document - 112 pages] that was produced as a background document for the Local Development Framework (LDF).

WYG did not produce a single figure for retail floor space as is implied by Chris Harts question, rather they produced a range of recommendations. They are also explict in saying that their conclusions should only be treated as guidelines rather than unchallengable evidence. WYG discuss three scenarios. The first is a 'do nothing' scenario. Their conclusion is that unless there is a substantial increase in comparison goods (non-food) retail floor space, the district as a whole will lose market share to competing centres. The second is intended to maintain market share at 27.6%. This suggests an extra 14,000 m2 by 2011 and 31,000 m2 by 2016. The third is intended to increase market share to 30%. This suggests an extra 16,000 m2 by 2011 and 34,000 m2 by 2016.

I do think we should try to regain some of the market share we have lost over recent years. As indicated in previous answers, I don't think we should encourage a situation where Lancaster people travel to Preston or the Trafford Centre. There is support for this point of view in the Regional Spatial Strategy as outlined above in a previous answer.

WYG clearly identify that the additional retail capacity cannot be drip fed into the system and that strategic intervention by the Council will be required. It also identifies that 'more of the same' will not increase market share but that a department store will.

The Council's Local Development Forum identifies the canal corridor site as the only place in which a substantial town centre retail expansion could take place by 2016. So clearly on either the second or third scenarios we should be looking at the 2016 figures not the 2011 figures and that figures in excess of 30,000m2 will be required by then. An expansion based round a anchor department store is more likely to be successful for the district as a whole.

However there is a clear caveat that a major expansion such as I have described must be accompanied by its own assessment of retail capacity and this will be part of the planning process. The development agreement does give the Council some control over the initial lettings of the development. This is one of the advantages of the council becoming the freeholder of the whole site and having conditions in the lease that go beyond those available to the Council as planning authority. Councillor Barry was wrong to suggest that the Council was not taking advantage of its role as landowner as well as planning authority. One of the circumstance in which the Council would intervene would be if a key retail was proposing to relocate from the City Centre to the new development.

The issue of the split between Lancaster and Morecambe retailing has been dealt with in a previous answer.

Has the idea of regeneration in Morecambe been abandoned? Do you agree that the only future for Morecambe is as a giant car park, as this was suggested as the only viable development in Morecambe by a member of cabinet?
Emilie Secker

The premise of this question is incorrect. That was not what my colleague said. You will see from my answer to one of your previous questions that there is a great deal of effort going into Morecambe regeneration.

Will the Council be lowering their expectations for Morecambe regeneration, specifically Midland Hotel, central promenade proposals, commercially viable future for the Winter Gardens and other projects in the west end and Arndale centre if the Centros Miller scheme goes ahead in Lancaster? Could Debenhams not have been steered to one of the Morecambe projects?
Siân Johnson

No. The Midland, the Central Promenade and other developments will still go ahead. I don't think we can have retail led regeneration in Morecambe. The recent history is of major retailers such as Marks and Spencer leaving the town. But some leisure led developments such as the Central Promenade should bring regeneration to the Morecambe economy.

I don't know on what terms Centros Miller have attracted Debenhams to Lancaster. It is said that they can command a low rent or a reverse premium (ie they are paid to come) in some towns, such is their value as an anchor tenant. The Council cannot compete in that market.

THE NORTHERN BYPASS

Do you think that the bypass is currently, and if built will be, the biggest waste of time, effort and money ever to occupy council time? And given that it is so unpopular what is the justification in doing it?
Anonymous

I don't agree and I don't accept it is unpopular. When public opinion was surveyed for the Community Strategy, completion of the Heysham M6 Link came out as the public's top priority. Properly conducted opinion poll work as opposed to that conducted by pressure groups or counts of self selecting people give substantial support to a by pass.

LOCAL ECONOMY

What is your opinion on Reebok leaving Lancaster and taking its high wage earners out of an already dying local economy? Was anything done to encourage them to stay?
Anonymous

This is clearly at setback for the local economy, though I would not characterise the latter as dying. We have achieved quite good growth in GVA in Lancaster recently.

The warehousing operation at White Lund will remain although the office at Moor Lane is closing. We have talked to Reebok but there appears there is little we can do to persuade them to remain. The move appears to arise from rationalisation following the merger of Reebok and Adidas. Although the two brands will be retained, a lot of the administration and marketing will be merged with most of their north European operations being concentrated near the Reebok Stadium in Bolton.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COUNCIL AND COUNTY COUNCIL

I would be interested to hear what Ian Barker has to say about the County Council's Customer Service Centre (CSC). I am sure that many council staff have an opinion. It has been heavily criticised [see this report from the Lancashire Evening Post - Ed] at a time when LCC is officially in a budget crisis and denying services to those in need. Yet it can find the resources for a centralised call centre which will require office relocation of hundreds of staff, which has extremely poor public transport links (pretty much car only).
Does Ian think that individuals should be more accountable for poor decisions, rather than just being moved sideways? The project manager in this case, who is being criticised by many peers, has been asked to take early retirement with a very large pension.
Anonymous

I don't know very much about the Hub other than what I have read in the newspapers and picked up from meetings with other colleagues around the County, although I am aware that it is late and more costly than anticipated.

I don't intend to comment on County Council staffing matters. I generally take the view that staffing policy matters are legitimate subjects for public debate but that matters relating to individual officers are not.

Initially, it was intended that the Hub would act as a call centre for both County and District Council services. Only a minority of districts, mainly in East Lancashire decided to participate. The previous Cabinet decided not to participate in what appeared to be a complex and potentially expensive project. I think they were right.

Ian Barker received all questuons sent to Virtual-Lancaster and has told us he will answer the others as soon as possible. We received a huge number, perhaps the biggest response to an appeal to our readers ever.