The good news? We had a reply from Arch CEO Peter McIntyre. The bad news. Surprisingly, it doesnt say anything. Judge for yourselves. First the reply via Kim, his PA, to yesterdays letters from us, then my reply to his. Dear Mr Blackburn Thank you for your letter dated 8th November about the Walkergate development. I have subsequently received another letter on the same subject from Mr Jim Herbert, which was copied to you. As Mr Herbert’s letter covers much the same ground, I am using this letter to respond to you both. As you know, Sir Alan Beith MP recently asked me to comment on a lengthy chain of emails sent by yourself about Walkergate and the Cowe Buildings and you have seen a copy of this reply. You have seen my interview with the editor of the Berwick Advertiser, which was published last week. The redevelopment of the Kwik-Save site is a long-standing aspiration and the scheme we have proposed is consistent with the Berwick Regeneration Strategy and the investment plan which was endorsed by the Berwick’s Future partnership. We will continue to seek opportunities to invest in homes, industrial and commercial property and cultural/tourism projects in Berwick but, as I have explained before, Arch is not a grant giving body. We do our best to attract external funding (for example, for the restoration of the Cowe Buildings) but we have to adopt a commercial perspective. We plan to invest £5m in the Walkergate project: the occupier will pay a market rent and the project will encourage others to invest in the town. Yours sincerely Peter McIntyre Group Managing Director Dear Kim Thank you for passing on Mr McIntyre’s comments. Sadly, they hardly come near to answering the questions that arise about this site and the larger question of the actual relationship between Arch and NCC and how much the people of Berwick (or elsewhere in Northumberland) can trust Arch and its motives. This is either because Mr McIntyre hasn’t actually bothered to read the letters and is fobbing us of with the same standard, evasive answers he gave Sir Alan Beith and again in the interview, or that he chooses not to. To perhaps make it clearer, here again are the questions I asked, and a couple more for good measure. 1. Given the average person has no great past knowledge of these things, how can you justify the statement that something presented as a done deal has not been sprung on us? 2. At the August “consultation” we were told that the 1st phase would be filled by people from 2 organisations that already operate in Berwick, 100 people from client GWA and another 100 from 2nd phase client NCC. Why do you persist in stating that the scheme will create 200 jobs when it doesn’t? 3. Given that you are merely moving office workers, why do you persist in the further fallacy that this move will create higher spending in Berwick? 4. While it is obvious that office workers will spend some money on food, coffee and other services”, the impression one gets is that this is a significant spend. What evidence exists for such an assertion? 5. Yes something needs to be done to the Kwik Save site but these firms could be located elsewhere. a) Why do these firms have to move to this precise site? b) What work was done to explore their possible move to any of the other sites outlined in my previous letter? c) I’m guessing Arch are not doing this for the fun of it. Is it the case that more money could be made by Arch, and the other firms associated with this deal, from the Kwik Save site? 6. If the Ramparts Business Park is not suitable for these businesses, what business is it good for? What is the future of the Ramparts Business Park in your vision for Berwick? 7. What did Arch or NCC actually do to think of the best use of the site and what did they do to promote the site to prospective clients? I would like to see (redacted if need be) documentation for this. 8. How far did anyone explore the possibility of a heritage hub funded through the Heritage Lottery Fund? Was it, or anything else, explored at all? Again, I would like to see documentation for this. 9. You have stated that no grant money is being used for this scheme. I’m sure that this is the case. a) Does this mean that no grant-funded schemes will be allowed to take place on any of the sites Arch is involved with? b) If not why not? c) If not, is that because Arch cannot make any money from grant funded projects? 10. What was the time difference between this particular scheme involving clients GWA and NCC being mooted, and the appointment of Arch as the company tasked with regenerating Berwick? Was it after Arch took control or before? 11. What really is the relationship between Arch and Northumberland County Council? (Choose one) a) Arch is a company owned and controlled by NCC in which case NCC are ultimately responsible for Arch’s actions. b) Arch is owned by NCC but NCC has no control over Arch’s actions. If so, where is the chain of public responsibility? c) Arch is an independent company with a vague remit but not controlled by NCC at all. If so, where is the chain of public responsibility? d) NCC are “owned” by Arch. If so, is there any chain of public responsibility? 12. Are any county councillors shareholders of Arch Holdings? I think that covers it for now. I would be grateful for point by point answers to each of these questions by the end of the month. Any refusal to answer will be taken as obfuscation. There cannot be (or should not be) any reason for hiding behind anonymity or confidentiality as you are being charged with this task by NCC, a publicly elected body here to serve the people of Northumberland and by that I include us little people up here in Berwick. Jim Herbert
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 23:30:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015