Stoke-on-Trent City Council urged us to expand, says Potteries Shopping Centre amid land row
THE chief executive of the firm which owns the Potteries Shopping Centre claims the planned £350 million City Sentral complex will not happen – and insists the city council 'encouraged' it to develop expansion plans before refusing to sell the required land.
Capital Shopping Centres (CSC) says Stoke-on-Trent City Council revealed it would not sell the land needed for a £14 million extension of the Potteries Shopping Centre just three days before officers awarded planning permission.
Mike Butterworth, chief operating officer at CSC, said the firm spent 'hundreds of thousands' of pounds developing plans – which included a 10-screen cinema and six restaurants – only to be told the council would not sell land in Brewery Street and Bryan Street.
Now the firm claims Realis Estates' planned £350 million shopping complex is stifling other developments because the city council will only support the Realis scheme. The Potteries expansion was due to be completed in 2014 – a year before the shopping centre, multiplex cinema and food quarter at City Sentral is scheduled to open.
Hotpoint HUE61P
60cm electric double oven
Ceramic Hob
Timer
AA rated
ONLY 459.90 and thats delivered Fast & free rom our vast warehouse stocks
Why not visit our Longton cooker centre for a look
Terms:
The best deal is on your doorstep - only condition is you have to be prepaired to shop locally, supporting a local firm and live within 25 miles of one of our branches
How good is that?
Contact: 01782 342609
Valid until: Sunday, June 02 2013
Mr Butterworth said: "All we have done is put in an application, which was encouraged by the city council.
"We spent hundreds of thousands developing the scheme – only to then be told they would not sell the land. They told us that three days before it was granted planning permission.
"The whole thing does not add up. I don't want to criticise Realis, but I genuinely do not believe the development will happen and it is hanging over Stoke-on-Trent like a blight.
"We still think we can deliver a more modest expansion. But why should the people of Stoke-on-Trent settle for second best simply because the council will not co-operate?"
Mr Butterworth's comments follow a rebuke by Realis boss Duncan Mathieson, who dismissed the Potteries Shopping Centre's ideas as 'small-scale' and a 'short-term fillip.' He said: "I'm genuinely surprised anyone would think it would be right for the council to put the long-term regeneration of the city centre at risk in order to allow a small-scale extension of The Potteries.
"Above all else, investors want certainty, ambition and commitment from a local authority. This is exactly what the council is providing.
"Despite unfounded criticism and pressure from those with vested interests, a change in its strategy at this stage could undermine confidence in the city among investors.
"The size and nature of The Potteries extension means that, unlike City Sentral, it cannot act as a catalyst for the wider regeneration of the city.
"What it will do, in a very challenging climate, is confuse the retail and leisure market enough to undermine the excellent progress we have been making in attracting new tenants."
Council leader Mohammed Pervez said: "CSC knew land was going to be an issue."
Comments
by strandedhere
Saturday, October 20 2012, 11:46AM
“So has the council got a 'plan b',just in case?
Hmm.....Bribery,bullying,blackmail...Yep,they've got quite a few!”
by deluded366
Saturday, October 20 2012, 10:52AM
“There is no reason the two centre's couldnt compliment each other.
Having two cinemas in the town centre is a little silly though. Maybe one should build a bowling alley or a proper ice rink (considering we don't have one for 40miles) instead.
If done correctly, Hanley town centre could be fantastic. City Sental at one end, the Potteries at the other and how about a covered walkway between the two to make a proper highstreet area through upper market square.
Then, rather than advertising just City Sentral to the midlands, advertise Hanley as a whole with the two complimenting centres...
Of course, the council are too stupid to look at the big picture.”
by Justsuppose
Friday, October 19 2012, 12:51AM
“It seems very plain to me - either the city in the persons of John van der Laarschoot and Councillor Pervez, or CSC are lying. This is not a simple "misinterpretation".
If someone is lying, the electorate, with a potential £59m of further debt coming our way, have the right to know which party it is.
I still don't understand why if "retail is the answer" to the city's woes, that two shopping centres can't compliment each other. Mr. Norris is absolutely correct when he cites the promotion of competition in order to benefit the consumer. If Realis is making demands, and given the dismissive manner which Mr. Matheison treats all who challenge his statements, then we ought to demand that the council cancel their joint land deals with Realis. If they don't and Realis go into administration, the land could be tied up for decades in administration.
This is a much bigger problem that anyone at senior level is admitting to.”
by stokemaveric
Thursday, October 18 2012, 7:17PM
“its no suprise that the city council is making a mess of this development is it really??? pervez and john van de earnalo££ say that they have to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in wages [from your council tax] to.. and i quote ''attract the top executives''...well they certainly are not up to the job are they??? why is it that every project this city council are involved in turns into a farce???...you just knew it was going to end up like this didnt you??? and a foundation hasnt even been dug yet..what a joke...”
by I_Norris
Thursday, October 18 2012, 6:19PM
“Council leader Mohammed Pervez said: "CSC knew land was going to be an issue."
Cllr Pervez , may I suggest the Land is not the Issue you are..
Your Developemtn agreement with Realis was to Facilitate Development issuing CPO and Building a Bus Station for them, where in your development does it say that Realis have a monopoly on development in Hanley for the next 7-10 years
If you have indeed agreed to a monopoly this would be completly at odds to planning policy statement 4, under which Potteries Centre Application would have been approved this clearly states Councils should Promote competition between retailers and enhanced consumer choice through the provision of innovative and efficient shopping, leisure, tourism and local services in town centres, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community (particularly socially excluded groups) and taking measures to conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the
established character and diversity of their town centres
A previous Foi request for a copy of the development agreement was refused because disclosure of this information would result in commercial organisations being less inclined to tender with the City Council, it now appears it is actually the devlopment agreement its self which is preventing business dealing with the Council”
by mole10
Thursday, October 18 2012, 10:44AM
“This is playing out like a scene from Godfather II.
Done Corleone is the one whose permission is needed for a project to go ahead.
Who or what is Realis?
We've got buses parked up with nowhere to go and they tell us of what is best for us.
Bent as a bottle of crisps.”
by GilbertL
Thursday, October 18 2012, 9:59AM
“So the council granted planning permission to CSC knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to proceed because the council held the key to the land. And the council and Realis are clinging on to the fantasy that is City Central because they believe it will bring more regeneration to Hanley than an expansion of the Potteries Shopping Centre. By the sounds of it then, the council are saying Hanley isn't big enough for both the Potteries and City Central. From what I've seen over the last few months, the council have no right (and no clue) as to what regeneration should happen in Stoke-on-Trent. The council have stopped listening to residents and plough on blindly.
Here's an example of one town that had an existing shopping centre and enhanced the whole town by creating a new shopping centre, but making sure the two worked together. http://tinyurl.com/cfdmaa3”