What being funded letter

To Tristram and Shaun

Can you please clarify something please, it may be lack of communication from the Council or just cross wires somewhere, as myself and others seem to see a significant aspect in different light.

What is the Council funding?

In recent correspondence you both have shared similar views...

Cllr Pender "The relocation to Hanley will encourage businesses to occupy the new office developments which will give the local economy the much needed impetus that it needs to grow."

Tristram Hunt MP "Business are more likely to move into modern office complex then invest in derelict site"

You both seem to see the Councils borrowing as being used to fund speculative office space, which is an entirely different proposal to funding a new Civic Centre. Can you please confirm what the situation is?

The Sentinel did report of proposals to fund phase 2 as speculative offices, but this was never brought to the table and was never reported to Councillors on any public agenda papers, can you please confirm if it was reported to yourselves hence your current view, and what current status is on the proposal, are we building New offices for Financial sector or are we building a new civic centre?

Your help is appreciated.

a few points to raise in Tristrams letter, you claim it is difficult to get a loan from PWLB and the fact that the council has secured a loan is a good sign. Sorry Tristram but the PWLB do not ask for a business case, or any proof of repayment, they dont even care who the business partners are, all they ask is that a requesting authority gives a VERBAL assurance that they can repay the loan. I'm a bit shocked if an MP is unaware of this fact.

The original proposal to outsource staff in 2009 this was scrapped on 10th March 2010 on advice of John van de Laarschot who claimed "being an ANCHOR tenant would undermine the commercial interests of the Council" and may I remind you no one that I speak with is OPPOSED to the CBD, just the New Civic Centre ( but your clarification on first point above may help there)

Please excuse tone of letter but think we need a clear message on what the council is funding and what they are hoping Genr9 fund.

REPLY

Dear Mr Norris,

Thank you for your email.  As you know, I am not your Member of Parliament and so these very understandable concerns you have about the development of the Central Business District need to be pursued through Joan. She, like myself and Rob Flello, is consistently asking detailed questions of the City Council and will, I am sure, be more than willing to keep you informed of those conversations.

Very best,

Tristram

Tristram Hunt

You really do talk the talk don't you, but fail to walk the walk.

"There is no doubt this new political landscape will herald changes here in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire.

It will mean politicians listening to public concerns, but it will also demand some bravery in sticking up for long-held values

The challenge is now on to re-engage with the public and convince them the non-pin-striped politicians have some answers."

Not one local Labour MP appears to have any effect on our local Labour Councillors blatantly ignoring the residents of Stoke on Trent, that is if you have actually questioned their decisions, or asked for any evidence from your Councillors or from Genr8 on the probability of Genr8 securing the private investment required to make Central Business District a success. They failed over the last 4 years to secure any just ask MP Simon Danczuk he may shred some light for you.

Can you please advise what actions you have taken to ensure Central Business District does not stall at phase one the New Civic Centre and that all Phases will be completed, and what response and evidence did you recieve? If the evidence is confidential a reply to confirm you have seen evidence in black and white that it will succeed, not as the Sentinel reported "The council currently has no plans to invest in these buildings and expects its private sector partner, Genr8, to take these schemes forward."

Ian Norris

Letter to editor of the Sentinel

Yesterday's Sentinel included a long piece from Mohammed Pervez praising the City Council to the skies - as usual.

You cannot be unaware that many members of the local electorate have serious concerns regarding the City Council's current actions clearly demonstrated by a 1000+-person march from Hanley to Stoke on a bitterly-cold Saturday earlier this year as well as one of the biggest letter series I can ever remember being published in the Sentinel - virtually all of which were in opposition to the Council's actions.

I list the main concerns which have been raised below :-

The City Council is planning to relocate its staff from the Civic Centre in Stoke to two new buildings in the proposed Central Business District in Hanley, despite the existing building being only about 20 years and and, apparently, good for many more years.

This is likely to convert Stoke into a ghost town

Despite the proposal for the construction of the CBD being raised several years ago, there is still no sign of any BUSINESS showing interest in establishing itself there.

For this reason, the City Council intends to take on loans of around £40M to finance the construction of the two buildings mentioned above - though it publicly admits that it cannot state a precise figure for this loan. This is supposed to kick-start businesses seeking to locate at the CBD.

The City Council publicly admit that this is a risk and they have consultants reports - which they commissioned - which give a fairly low probability of success of the proposed CBD development.

It has recently been revealed - as a result of a freedom of information request which the City Council tried to block - that it already has a loan book of just under £280M - around £1100 for every man, woman, child and baby in the city. The £40M mentioned above would be in addition to the £280M.

The City Council has a plan to sell-off redundant buildings, but they have recently been warned that this could take many years to happen.

Ever since the possible closure of the splash pool at the Dimensions centre was raised (2007 ?), there were suspicions that the City Council had tried to reach some form of agreement with Mo Chaudry of Waterworld that the Dimensions pool would close and swimming lessons would take place at Waterworld.

These rumours were denied at the time and later, when £28000 was paid to Mo Chaudry to avoid potential legal action for breach of contract, the existence of the Dimensions / Waterworld plan was again repeatedly denied.

Only a few weeks ago - again as a result of a freedom of information request which the City Council were unable to block - it was revealed that the plan mentioned above certainly existed. The then-elected mayor, Mark Meredith, was directly involved and he has now resigned as a member of the City Council, but he continues to be a councillor.

Many of these problems are due to a) complete dominance by the Labour group councillors, who seem unwilling to do anything but toe-the-party-line set by Mohammed Pervez and b) the failure of City Council officers to realise that their job is to advise on - and implement - policy and not to lay this down to councillors.

For all these reasons, I - and many other residents - now don't believe any information which the City Council publishes. If there was any way of doing it, we would like the operations of the Council to be thoroughly investigated by some external agency,

Given the above, I challenge the Sentinel to publish a piece of similar length covering the concerns of the local electorate. I would suggest the organising committee of the "March on Stoke" informal group be invited to prepare this.

Diane Morgan to Tristram Hunt

Dear Tristram Hunt,

In a city faced with numerous challenges both social and economic it is
with exasperation that I learn of the current £280,000,000 City Council
debt, not to forget the addition of the ever changing cost of the
Central Business District in Hanley.

I have two questions;

How can the city possibly start its recovery from the national and
local economic downturns with overwhelming debts?

How has this situation arisen, indeed how can a city on its financial
knees be granted more loans?

On a closing cultural note, I watched with pride a television programme
recently about the life and achievements of one of the greatest sons
and industrialists of the Potteries, Josiah Wedgewood, who along with
others put this city on the map. What would these great people think of
the city now I wonder?

I note the home of Josiah Wedgewood is for sale. What a missed
opportunity for tourism/heritage trails, another part of the Potteries
unique history possibly lost for ever, the cost of which to develop
would be minimal in comparison to other developments.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email

Yours sincerely,

Diane Morgan

to Tristram Hunt

Dear Tristram Hunt
I wrote to you in January 2013, expressing my extreme consternation about Stoke on Trent City Council’s reckless spending and borrowing of money, in particular relating to the proposed move to the Central Business District.
In your reply you questioned my financial figures and stated that only £250,000 has been spent on the Stoke Civic Centre refurbishment and it was just floor one that was refurbished. All floors were refurbished, starting at floor four and working down to floor one. But, as you said, we could continue to debate the merits of such work (and the cost). However, it is too late to stop that money being spent and I am now focusing my concerns with future borrowing.

Referring to the Council’s financial acumen, I directly quote from your letter ‘I have more faith in their competency than you do’, In light of recent revelations about:
1. The City’s £280m debt
2. The arrest of a Labour councillor on theft charges
3. Mark Meredith’s scandal-related resignation
4. Missing cash from the Labour party’s bank account
5. The abandoned plans to borrow another £19m due to public backlash
..... and no doubt more financial irregularities that have not yet come to light, I have one question for you: Do you still have ‘faith in their competency’?
This is a city in ruins.
Yours sincerely.
Anne Farrington

Tristram Hunts Reply 

compared to his reply back 

Tristram Hunr 22nd January Reply

email to my local councillor, Shaun Pender

Dear Shaun Pender

I emailed you on 17 January 2013, detailing my extreme dismay about the outrageous and reckless borrowing undertaken by the Labour-controlled council. I finished with two questions for you:

1) Do you agree with Stoke-on-Trent Council borrowing millions and millions of pounds to fund a building to re-house staff that already occupy another purpose-built building?
2) If you do agree, will you give me your reasons please?

Simple enough questions, but you said the ‘The rationale underpinning the relocation to Hanley is complex so I will ask the relevant cabinet holder to provide a comprehensive response to your question’

That cabinet member was Mark Meredith and his response was the usual corporate flannel. In light of his recent scandal-related resignation, do you now feel able to answer my questions personally or will you again feel obliged to refer them on? You are my local councillor and so I direct my questions to you and would appreciate an honest response.

Yours sincerely

Anne Farrington

REPLY

Dear Ann Farrington,

I do support the development of the Central Business District of which the 
relocation of services to Hanley is an integral part.

The decline of traditional industries means that for many years our city has 
been on a downward economic spiral. As a consequence, indices of deprivation 
within Stoke-on-Trent make grim reading. Educational attainment, income levels, 
mortality rates and house prices are all well below the national average.

Central government has imposed year on year cuts of 7% on the Local Authority 
(compared to much less severe cuts for Tory led councils) making it increasingly 
difficult for them to provide services within the city.  Further, economic 
stagnation within the city means that the Local Authority has an ever decreasing 
revenue stream as business rates are not being generated. Similarly, high levels 
of unemployment takes people below the council tax threshold.

This direction of travel is not an option and can only be arrested through the 
creation of real employment opportunities for the residents of the city. To 
create these much needed jobs requires a bold forward thinking strategy and 
above all targeted capital investment. By developing the CBD and other 
associated projects, the council will help to create a vibrant, modern centre 
which is a prerequisite for any city that is serious about regenerating.

The relocation to Hanley will encourage businesses from the financial  sector to 
occupy the new office developments which will give the local economy the much 
needed impetus that it needs to grow. The cost to the council of moving to the 
CBD will be offset by the sale of its existing assets, and the considerable long 
term savings which will be made through reduced  maintenance and energy costs.

The development of Stoke town centre is also part of the overall strategy for 
growth. I believe that there has been significant interest from investors in 
both the civic and former Spode sites with the real possibility of new 
employment opportunities for our local residents.

Incidentally, I passed your first email on to the cabinet member because I 
genuinely thought that he would better placed to provide you with an 
authoritative explanation of the rationale behind the move to Hanley. This is 
common practice within the council and with me not hearing anything to the 
contrary I naturally assumed that you were satisfied with the way that I handled 
your question.

In your email you say that you would "appreciate an honest response" to your 
question. And as an elected member this is something that I endeavour to do at 
all times. 

Yours sincerely
Shaun Pender   

Alan Lear to his MP, Rob Flello:

Dear Mr Flello,
I am writing to you to express my concerns about our Labour-led council and its officers taking this city deeper and deeper into debt that the residents can’t afford, on a controversial and total gamble of moving our civic centre from Stoke to Hanley. They are doing this in the forlorn hope that it will generate the local economy by inducing new businesses to locate there.
My concerns are:
1) In the report to Cabinet recommending the CBD development, 31May 2012, this paragraph appears:

1.3. From when the concept of a Central Business District was first discussed, there has been a recognition that, in the absence of an established 'office market', to enable a project of this nature to commence it will require a public sector, or similar anchor tenant, on which future marketing can be promoted and built. This report has been produced to seek members' support to the City Council taking up office accommodation in the critical initial phase of the development. If the City Council does not commit to establishing significance in the new central business district it is extremely unlikely that the development will progress.
If this is the case then it is self-evident that this is a foolhardy and reckless commitment of public funds to a venture that is doomed to failure if it was required to stand as a privately funded business venture. I’m absolutely astounded that not one councillor took this statement up and questioned the logic of taking the decision to go forward with this move.

2) The Council wants to build upon the retail sector and bring in large companies to the CBD. This sector, as anyone who keeps up with the news, is in meltdown due to the economic situation. Only today we see the closure of a Hovis bread making plant, Tesco and even Apple are showing that there is a huge decline in their profits. Locally we have a 28% retail unit vacancy level and shops are continually closing down to such a degree that my local High Street seems to be changing on a weekly basis. You yourself, only today, commented on Prime Minister’s Question time about the huge increases in the referral and use of Food Banks which have to, in some cases, limit their distribution of food to only families with children. What will happen to these people if they are subjected to more benefit cuts and a probable rise in council tax to pay for this move?
3) For any large business to commit to a business start-up in any particular location they look at its infrastructure. What are the transport network systems like? How easily can materials be brought in and finished products distributed to customers? How skilled and adaptable are the local workforce? What is the local educational attainment level? How much poverty and deprivation exists? What type of economy already exists? What is the average wage for the locality and how much disposable income do the residents have? Personally I feel that Hanley falls desperately short of expectations on quite a few of the above. I believe this is why we can’t get any information on which firms are interested into taking up occupancy in the CBD. On the other hand we are told that there have been 29 expressions of interest in moving to Stoke, which has the benefit of the transport network previously mentioned.
4) With large retail organisations the Pareto principle applies or the 80-20 rule of thumb. Any large organisation will take 80% of its earnings/profit out of the area/community where they are located. You only have to think of Kier or Tesco. They don’t buy from our local businesses therefore they are not really contributing to our local economy. True they do contribute wages (the 20%) but the majority are so low that they attract in work benefits. In addition these companies take all of their profit and it is placed on the books of their parent companies far removed from the communities in which their profits were generated. 
5) I believe the council is failing to demonstrate its understanding of our local retail economy. There are nearly 300,000 stores in the country with 86% employing fewer than 10 people. The importance of retail to local economies should not be underestimated. It is one of the few sectors with a presence in every neighbourhood across the six towns. These local economies are underpinned by retail as a provider of employment and the goods and services people need and want. Where there is this amount of small retail activity there is a multiplier effect for other consumer facing enterprises (tourism, food and drink, sports and leisure, personal services as diverse as hair and beauty and banking, evening and night-time economy). The council shouldn’t be concentrating on building another retail park which will take years, it should invest in this local economy which already exists. The council could start to do this tomorrow.

6) I was horrified to recently discover that we are currently in debt to the tune of nearly £280 million pounds to the Public Works Loans Board and that some of the loans are not due to mature until the 2050s. The information also shows that we are currently paying interest on those loans at a rate of £12.3 million pounds per year. It also shows that our Labour led council borrowed £74.4 million in 2012 with yearly interest payments of £2.6 million. With this huge outstanding debt hanging over the good people of this great city I cannot think of one good reason to continue with this controversial and uneconomical move of the civic centre from Stoke to Hanley. We don’t know how much this will cost as neither our Council Leader, Councillor Pervez nor Peter Bates, the Assistant Director for Financial Services are able to give us any answers other than it is a gamble that will bring businesses and jobs to Hanley and we should trust them to handle this kind of budget.

As my local MP I do hope that you will take up my concerns with the other local MPs and I do hope that you can persuade them and the Labour cabinet members on our council to rescind their decision to move the civic centre. If they continue to proceed with this move then I predict that it will be a reckless and a financial disaster. 
Yours sincerely,
Alan Lear

Future plans

Dear Mark Meredith,

I write following your recent resignation as cabinet member for Stoke on Trent City Council and your current position as elected member for Northwood and Birches Head.

In light of your resignation I would like to ask two questions:

1. Will you be committing more time to Northwood and Birches Head and
increase your visibility in the community?

2. How will further questions regarding Dimensions now be answered and
through what forum?

Yours sincerely,

Diane Morgan

REPLY on 24 April 2014..........................

Hi Diane

I have held a ward surgery every month at the Bridge Centre along with two other surgeries in other parts of the ward. 

I also held a public meeting in Northwood Parish last week where I presented the councils Mandate for Change. 

I hope to hold a similar event at Birches Head High later this year. I also plan to produce a local newsletter for residents which will be out later this spring. 

On the Dimensions issue the council has answered questions through the Freedom of Information process to date and I presume this would continue if further questions arise. 

Kind regards 

Mark 
Councillor Mark Meredith
Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Letter to the Sentinel

Dear Sir,

Recently one of our March on Stoke members applied for a Freedom of Information request to the council regarding the outstanding loans our Council and its Officers have made the residents of Stoke on Trent liable for.

I was horrified to discover that we are currently in debt to the tune of nearly £280 million pounds to the Public Works Loans Board and that some of the loans are not due to mature until the 2050s. The information also shows that we are currently paying interest on those loans at a rate of £12.3 million pounds per year.

It also shows that our Labour led council borrowed £74.4 million in 2012 with yearly interest payments of £2.6 million.

With this huge outstanding debt hanging over the good people of this great city I cannot think of one good reason to continue with this controversial and uneconomical move of the civic centre from Stoke to Hanley. We don’t know how much this will cost as neither our Council Leader, Councillor Pervez nor Peter Bates, the Assistant Director for Financial Services are able to give us any answers other than it is a gamble that will bring businesses and jobs to Hanley and we should trust them to handle this kind of budget.

I don’t know how your readers will react to the information regarding our debts but I know that there is huge opposition to moving our Civic Centre. I feel that if the council goes ahead with this move in times of such great austerity and adds even more debt to the amounts that we already owe then it will not be a "brave and bold" decision it will be a reckless and a financial disaster.

More and more residents are seriously doubting our leader's financial competence and are joining with our March on Stoke members who have no confidence at all in the Labour Councillors and Officers running this city for the benefit of its residents.

Personally I feel that the Labour Party is doing to Stoke on Trent what it did to the country whilst it was in power.

Alan Barrett reply to District Auditor

• Dear Mr. Stocks,
  
  many thanks for your email which I received today regarding my concerns about the CBD in Stoke-on-Trent and its impact on the town of Stoke.
  
  First of all, and this may seem a small thing in the light of the bigger picture, but it's important to those of us who live here; there has never been a Stoke Town. It's Stoke upon Trent (no hyphens). The town itself pre-dates the city by many centuries, approaching a millennia and a half, and it's only been renamed by deceit and subterfuge by Kevin Bell when he was regeneration officer for the town. I spoke to him about his dubious tactics to get his own way, and he told me "I don't care". Now, I realise this particular aspect probably falls well outside your remit, but I include it for two reasons. First, I'd appreciate your not using the term Stoke Town, second to show you with just how much disrespect the voters and council tax payers of the city are shown by the UNELECTED officers who don't live here, never have and never will, contribute zero to the wealth of the city, will not have to pay for the borrowing they're inflicting upon the city, and appear to be operating as a ruling group outside the elected council. I have made my concerns know to the labour group and the labour HQ. No-one has seen fit to reply to me.
  
  Moving on to your actual report, many thanks for providing a copy. I note that on many occasions you mention the cabinet. I didn't see anywhere that the whole council was involved in the decision making process, presumably, they merely act as a rubber stamp to the council's decisions. I appreciate that this council has a huge majority and we all know that expulsions are the norm if any of them vote against the party whip, which is used far too regularly in my opinion. Surely, as a financial burden to the whole city, the whole council should be involved in discussion about this loan, not merely the ten people with a vested interest in keeping their power base?
  
  The consultations you mention were carried out AFTER the decision was made, and the illegally named "Mandate for Change", which has no mandate for this move, nor the loan, as it was never put before the electorate, is trotted out as a mantra by the whole Labour party, as though this is the panacea for all problems. Again, public money being used to promote an illegal agenda.
  
  Further, issuing a document is NOT consultation, especially as it's well known that most people don't read such documents and as I said, the decisions had already been made before the publication. In my opinion, consultation takes place BEFORE a decision is made, especially with public finances.
  
  Furthermore, we've been told constantly, particularly by the deputy leader, Cllr Shotton, that we have to "consolidate the buildings management", meaning we all have to move to Hanley, because we have far too many council offices, yet the report clearly states the provision of council offices in the towns. There is a dire hypocrisy here, and it needs to be fully explained.
  
  I also note with great interest your comment -
  
  "I recommend that the Council:
  reviews its CBD transition management plan covering the logistics of the transition,
  customer access and service hub plans and the full requirement for buildings. This plan
  should be shared with members; and
  reassess its overall project management arrangements and ensures that it has sufficient
  resources to oversee the projects."
  
  Sufficient resources would indeed be the issue. So far, there is nothing at all apart from "29 expressions of interest", which is as nebulous as you can get, in the potential sale of the Stoke site. You've also expressed concern that the time to create the regeneration needed in Stoke upon Trent has no clear committal. I contend that this is a deliberate policy by the council.
  
  Some of us have very long memories and can recall the wonderful Victorian market in Stoke being burned down "accidentally". They did nothing to rebuild it for ten years while Hanley was, even back then, built into the shopping centre. They put the A500 in, deliberately cutting Stoke off from Hanley and all the developments they're suggesting for Stoke involve new roads etc travelling from the railways station AWAY from Stoke, to Hanley.
  
  We've been throwing millions of pounds at Hanley for decades, and it's still awfully difficult to get to and to park in, with no discernible proof that it's working as a policy for improving the WHOLE city.
  
  Raising business rates in a recession is muddled think at best, expecting to attract new businesses to relocate there when it will cost their employees about £1000 a year just to park in Hanley, (there appears to be very little provision plan for employee car parking), is short-sightedness on a monumental scale, and to have a Central BUSINESS District with only 3 tenants listed thusfar, and none of them BUSINESSES, (the council, the library and the police station), is staggeringly bewildering in their "Field of Dreams" mentality: - if you build it, they will come. Really?
  
  The bus station, much needed, 20 years overdue, 6 months behind even that schedule, badly sited, poorly planned and far too small, is at least a step in the right direction. However, you also mention that work on the City Sentral (sic) should be in tandem with the CBD. I would ask you to delve deeper into Realis and Genr8, to see just how poor their credit ratings are, and how many developments of this magnitude have come in on time or without complaint. Those of us campaigning against the move of the Civic Centre to Hanley have done our research, and it's frightening!
  
  There is a long history of multiple shopping centres in Hanley, including on the site of the proposed new one, and in every case, without exception, one of them has failed. Again, I remind you that NOT ONE anchor tenant is firmed up on a project that's been at least 2 years in the marketing.
  
  Sadly, it makes bleak reading and the future of our city is clearly not in good hands under the present administration. They are not listening, and by your own report, have much to do to gain any public trust at all. I realise your role is that of ensuring proper procedures are followed and public spending done appropriately, but given all I've stated above, surely you must have serious cause for concern. The consultations of two very major reports appear to have been ignored, presumably because they express very serious concerns about the viability of the move of the civic offices from Stoke to Hanley.
  
  All in all, there are still many concerns, even fears, about the cavalier approach the council and its officers are taking in a time of austerity, shrinking demand for retail outlets and the disturbing lack of business interest in this project. I urge you to please look again at the proposed move and its implications for the whole city.
  
  Yours sincerely,
  
  Alan Barrett

The Betrayal of Stoke-on-Trent
by
Richard Snell

District Auditor's letter

You will, I assume, have heard about the recent letter sent by the District Auditor to John van de Laarschot regarding concerns raised by the local electorate relating to the City Council's plan to move its offices from the Civic Centre in Stoke to the CBD in Hanley. You will also, of course, be well aware that there is much opposition to this plan from residents, not to mention businesses in Stoke.

In his letter, the District Auditor suggests - probably with an implied "you must do" - that the City Council carry out a list of actions regarding the proposed move to the CBD.

He also mentions that the actions be reported to members of the council and you will, I trust, insist that this means ALL members of the council and not just those in the cabinet.

Can I also remind you that the City Council exists to serve the needs of the local electorate and I therefore call on you all to insist that the results of the actions suggested by the District Auditior be made available to the public. 

Feel free to copy to other councillors !

Dear Mr Pervez

I would like to completely endorse everything that Richard Snell from ‘Save our Stoke’ said in the letter that he recently sent to you.

I am a long-standing and long-suffering resident of this city and have become increasingly disillusioned with successive councils by their stubborn destruction and passive neglect of this once fine city. 

There isn't anything I can add to the letter. However, I would like to ask a question and would appreciate an answer that is sincere and honest and not couched in corporate jargon from the communication team that has been regurgitated time and time again. My question is this: ‘If, against the overwhelming majority of public opinion, this decision to spend millions of pounds on a new civic centre and become the anchor tenant in the CBD in order to attract other businesses turns out to be an unmitigated disaster, will you and the rest of the decision-makers be willing to publicly admit your mistake?’

I know an apology will do nothing to right a colossal wrong, but a sudden attack of conscience is probably the best the people of Stoke-on-Trent can hope for.

Yours sincerely

Anne Farrington
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pervez's response:

Dear Ms Farrington,

Jobs don't get created overnight and I've yet to come across a local authority which has managed to get jobs overnight.

These things take time and all we can do is to create the right conditions to attract the inward investment and support existing businesses.

Central Business District is important to us to improve the range of jobs we have in the city. I appreciate the local authority kick starting this development is contentious but it is not a totally unknown concept. Currently we have a derelict site which is difficult to market as is. Once we have kick started the development and the necessary land assembly is complete then we will be in a much better position to attract the necessary interest.

The worst case scenario is that we can do all this and still not get any interest in the site. This is a potential risk, I am well aware of this but the risk of doing nothing is far greater.

For years we have shied away from difficult decisions and have seen our city go into decline. City's which have got their act together have succeeded.

Our vision for jobs and growth will benefit the whole city not just the city centre.

Jobs is what our people want and this is what our vision sets out to do. The Central Business District is just one element.

We are also in negotiations with Central Government over a City Deal to make Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire an economic powerhouse for advanced materials (ceramics, metals, polymers etc.) which will involve making our employment sites fit for purpose, up-skilling our workforce and driving Research & Development in the area.

I make no apologies for striving for jobs and growth in the city.

Best Regards,
Councillor Mohammed Pervez,
Leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council & Councillor for Moorcroft Ward.
Tel: 01782 232468

Dear Councillor Pervez,
I am writing to inform you that I have read a printout of the letter recently sent to you by Richard Snell regarding what he sees as “The betrayal of Stoke on Trent.” There is nothing in his letter that I find I could take exception to, or disagree with and I fully support and endorse what Mr Snell is saying.

It has long been my belief that the City Council, over which you preside, is mis-managed and totally inadequate. You seem to operate a system of secrecy, bad management of financial risk with some of the most inexplicable decision making being carried out in secret. Decisions which you, your Councillor colleagues and the Officers either deny have ever happened or by a process of miscommunication you have attempted to keep from opposition Councillors and the people of Stoke on Trent. 

Not only is the Council wasteful you also have the temerity to take huge risks with our money which will result in debts that we and our children will be repaying in years to come. You have become adept at ignoring the people of this city and have indulged in some fantasy that the CBD will solve all of our problems when we know from past experience that this is not so.

As Mr Snell has made these public allegations I look forward to your reply also being made public. I do however think that like everything else, you will employ your PR team to think up some strategy to completely “muddy the waters” in an attempt to keep the truth from the people of Stoke-on-Trent.

Finally I would just like to remind you that 2015 is not too far away.

Yours sincerely.

Alan Lear

Dear Mr Lear,

You are entitled to your opinion. You don't need to remind us of elections. We already know. Our strategy is based on creating the right conditions for jobs and growth in the city. This is not about elections but about future generations.

Best Regards,
Councillor Mohammed Pervez,

Dear Councillor Pervez,
Thanks for your reply in particular regarding your strategy for creating the right conditions for jobs and growth in the city. I totally support any strategy that will create jobs and growth and bring prosperity back to this city as I’m sure that other protesters will echo.

Successive Labour led councils and inadequate Officers have, through their ill-conceived plans, reduced our future generations’ prospects to greater deprivation and poverty. Education standards and attainment fall well below regional and national averages and I know that education drives aspiration and ambition. In addition your strategy will encumber this generation even further by attracting thousands of minimum paid jobs in the retail and service sectors so they will be faced with a lifetime of worry because they are in jobs that attract in-work benefits and leave them with very little discretionary disposable income. You will also add to their burden by saddling them with a debt for a move that 90% of the people of this city have shown that they don’t support or need. That’s what your opinion and strategy will give our future generation.

My opinion and strategy is based on the fact that I know the conditions for growth and job creation already exist. I know that our economy is built upon the efforts and entrepreneurship of small to medium enterprises. Just look in the Yellow Pages and let this guide you. You could contact every business in the SIX TOWNS and ask them what it would take for them to employ just one extra member of staff, particularly from the young and elderly unemployed. You could then give them the conditions for doing that. You could do that tomorrow and would see the fruits of these efforts in a very short time. You don’t have to build a Central Business District taking years, build on what exists.

I am sure that my strategy would not cost anywhere near the figures I hear quoted for the move of the civic centre and would benefit the city AS A WHOLE and not just one part of it. What is the point of an attractive retail centre when you have to pass through five ghettos to get to it?

Finally, and like many others, I will oppose you or anyone I feel is not doing their job of representing the people they were elected to serve so I suppose that takes care of some of my plans until 2015.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Lear

Dear Mr Pervez

I would like to completely endorse everything that Richard Snell from ‘Save our Stoke’ said in the letter that he recently sent to you.

I am a long-standing and long-suffering resident of this city and have become increasingly disillusioned with successive councils by their stubborn destruction and passive neglect of this once fine city. 

There isn't anything I can add to the letter. However, I would like to ask a question and would appreciate an answer that is sincere and honest and not couched in corporate jargon from the communication team that has been regurgitated time and time again. My question is this: ‘If, against the overwhelming majority of public opinion, this decision to spend millions of pounds on a new civic centre and become the anchor tenant in the CBD in order to attract other businesses turns out to be an unmitigated disaster, will you and the rest of the decision-makers be willing to publicly admit your mistake?’

I know an apology will do nothing to right a colossal wrong, but a sudden attack of conscience is probably the best the people of Stoke-on-Trent can hope for.

Yours sincerely

Anne Farrington

Dear Mr Coulborn,

Thank you for your email. Like you I am also proud of our City in terms of its heritage, six towns, hard working people and two football teams.

That is why we acted decisively when it came to the rescue of Port Vale FC on the hour of their need; that is why we are in negotiations with central government over a City Deal to make Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire an economic powerhouse in terms of advanced materials (ceramics, metals, polymers etc.) and that is why even in these economically difficult times we continue to invest in our city to stimulate jobs creation and growth.

Our state of the art bus station went on display in the last couple of days and what a beautiful building it is. An excellent gateway to our City Centre. We continue to push for the City Sentral development (in terms of retail and Leisure) and are very serious about the creation of a Central Business District (CBD) (high quality office jobs, retail, hotels etc.). So serious that we have taken a bold decision to kick start the CBD development. We are building brand new secondary schools for our future generations.

Whenever I speak to people their number 1 priority remains jobs and growth and this is where the future of our city lies.

The harsh reality of our City is that despite being the 13th largest city in the UK we rank 76th when it comes to the performance of our city centre in terms of the retail offer. Our performance in terms of other key indicators can also be a a lot better.

Being proud of our past is one thing but we also need to secure the City's future and that is why it is so important for us all to work together to promote our city positively to attract the jobs we need for our people. Our strategy is not just about the city centre but the whole city.

If we are going to make a real difference then we have to be bold in our approach and not shy away from difficult decisions. The easiest thing for me to do is to sit back and not make any difficult decisions but this will do nothing for the future of our city.

We have a clear vision for our city, a vision that will create the jobs and growth that our people crying out for and the vision that will transform our city to one which we can continue to be proud of !


Best Regards,
Councillor Mohammed Pervez,

Dear Clr. Pervez,

I am writing to endorse and give my full support to the letter you recently received from Richard Snell. I very much hope you have read it, and hope even more (in vain no doubt), that you act upon it. If you do respond to this e-mail, I would respectivally ask that you do not retort with your usual tiresome response to anyone questioning the inadaquacies of your council by blaming the Lib/Con Government.

Yours Sincerely,