Oxford

Yesterday in my piece about the Policy Exchange think tank's suggestion that Oxford and Cambridge ought to be allowed to expand to as many as a million homes I mentioned the work "Car Free Cities" by J H Crawford which I came across a decade ago when looking into Oxford's last Local Plan. In it he postulates a city of a million people with a topology and transport system that means that any two addresses anywhere in the city would be no more than 35 minutes apart by foot and rapid transit system.

The city is made up of many districts of about 12,000 population like strings of beads along one of three overlapping rapid transport loops. Every home is less than five minutes walk from open countryside. And whilst the densities within the districts are amongst the highest on earth (similar to Seoul, for example, although nothing is more than three stories in the reference designs) only 20% of the total 100 sq mile (10 by 10) area is developed at all, leaving all the areas between the beads and strings as open countryside or managed parkland or whatever. Overall then the density is not a lot greater than Oxford's current density and less than the average of Greater London as a whole.

So, for a bit of fun, I superimposed Crawford's one million population city topology onto the ten by ten mile square centered on the current centre of Oxford. Now sure, a million population is only probably about a third of the million households the Policy Exchange report was ultimately suggesting, but if anyone says to you that it would simply be impossible to imagine a million people in the area between Wheatley and Eynsham, Littlemore and Kidlington, you can say you have seen how, and with no traffic and only 20% of the land developed to boot! It would currently take me over an hour to get from the end of one of these loops to about a third of the way out the adjacent one, incidentally.

Now nobody is suggesting that we do this, least of all me. I'm just demonstrating that it would be possible, indeed whilst making more of the green belt actually because all the space would be accessible in minutes rather than in half an hour in the car, it would reach right into everyone's neighbourhood - with open country no more than 400m from every front door. Fitting such principles into existing cities is of course much more difficult than an academic sitting at a drawing board with a blank sheet of paper. They need not be loops for example but twelve strings with termini at the end of each. It would increase average journey times but not the overall maximum of 35 minutes door to door and could be fitted in along existing radial roads as a series of villages.

Incidentally, the picture on the right here shows some of the housing in the ward with the highest density in England, at least that I can find - a "middle level super output area" either side of the Cromwell Rd in Kensington & Chelsea.  I notice from Net House Prices that there have been 267 £1m plus residential property transactions in the last eight years in this post code area.  This is getting pretty close to the densities that would be required in a city such as that in Crawford's book.  It's hardly slum clearance stuff is it!

When I saw the first press mention of the "Cities Unlimited: making urban regeneration work" report from the Policy Exchange think tank in the Oxford Mail yesterday screaming that "Oxford should get a million new homes" and I noticed prominent Lib Dem economics boffin Tim Leunig was involved I'm afraid I at first reacted with my heart, yelling "Not In My Back Yard, you heartless economist you" before engaging my head.

You see, all too often Tim has come out with some great ideas that have been instantly presented as the works of the devil himself. There were "community land auctions" which, for those who didn't think about it too much, was presented as the state confiscating land from private owners at a fraction of its value. Then more recently his idea for allowing people to sell the social housing home they rent in order to buy another one of their choice elsewhere which would in turn become a social housing home. Even I had to think about that one for a while before I thought it was anything other than a great council house give-away scam. Such is the fate, almost inevitably I suspect, of people who write about "agglomeration economics" and "gross value added" measures of local economic activity.

And so it is also with this report. It is, despite the economic jargon at times, quite an easy read, with what I find to be compelling arguments. It is counter-intuitive for sure, for anyone who has worried about what to do about the "North South divide" and traditional regional policy which has been focussed on using regeneration money to try and repopulate declining towns, to keep people where they are and bring the economic prosperity to them. It has enough controversial suggestions for any mischievous media outlet or politician in denial to pick out the one that seems to say most about their area and have a go at it.

And boy, have they had a field day with it. If you're vaguely northern, or Welsh, you are to be outraged that the report says regeneration has failed, and not only failed but unlikely ever to recover your town's fortunes. If you're in Oxford or Cambridge you've got a million new homes to get outraged about. If you're anti-Tory you will like the portrayals of it as demanding no more money should go to Labour heartlands in the north. It is, in some senses, a perfect storm - there's something for absolutely everyone to criticize about it. But I would suggest they read it first as it is apparent that many who have commented on it, from John Prescott down, have not.

Yes, it does say that the regeneration money lavished on declining cities and towns (and over the past four decades not just Labour's tenure) has been wasted. Of course, the Labour ministers and MPs who championed this money more recently going into their heartlands are outraged. But the report, or rather its predecessor data collection exercise, "Cities Limited", shows pretty conclusively that this failure is real - that, whilst they may be declining slightly less slowly in comparison with more prosperous areas than before the money was spent, they are certainly not catching up, or keeping up. But it does not, as Adam Bienkov writes at Liberal Conspiracy, call for that money to end, for the rest of the country to just "fuck off".

Actually quite the opposite. Anticipating an incoming Tory government will naturally be likely to have fewer "champions" of these northern former industrial towns, it suggests instead of these grand technocratically led regeneration projects controlled from the [London] centre, government should give pretty well the same total amount of money to the local authorities based on need but for them to spend on what they see fit for improving the quality of life in their own towns and cities. This, it says (or rather another predecessor report called "Cities for Success" said) will lead to stronger, better scrutinized and more responsive local government producing "quality of life" projects that people actually want, rather than what some central planner looking at house prices from Whitehall thinks is good for them.

So it's a document about devolution and decentralization of regeneration. About freeing those local authorities in declining areas to choose how they respond to that depopulation rather than how the centre says they should. It is not that spending money on a place always fails, it is that the over-riding concern of regeneration money and regional policy to date has been that these places need to be repopulated by that money, people actively encouraged not to up sticks and leave, despite the obvious fact that they stand to have greater opportunity and more possibilities for increasing their wealth by moving, when in fact the money might be best spent making the quality of life for those who remain far higher.

In fact, it says that this current regeneration policy has even worse effects. Because regeneration areas are still, despite the billions, growing at a slower rate than the successful areas, in insisting that they should be repopulated come what may, regeneration policy is "condemning" the people it persuades to remain or return there to a slow lane of growth. And that because the exodus is led by the more mobile, enterprising, adventurous and usually better skilled parts of the population, it means that what is being left behind is denuded of its greatest assets - the skilled people that might make it attractive for new businesses to set up there.

And of course, the other main controversy is about what those skilled people wanting to better themselves should do. Clearly, London is a huge draw - I always think if it personally as a black hole with government and the City at the singularity and threatening to swallow anything that falls into its event horizon which has been expanding for centuries. Others of course say they like London. So why would they want to prevent others having the same standard of living and opportunities as they do.

Adding an extra million homes around London, says the report, would be the equivalent of adding an extra two miles to the outskirts. Traveling along the M40 at Hillingdon at 70mph for example this, he says, would mean that it would take someone an extra two minutes to reach the countryside. Are we [in London that is] so selfish that we would deny that opportunity to others from "up north" for the sake of it taking an extra two minutes to get to open countryside? Conveniently, the response from the Lib Dem PPC for Hastings yesterday, reveals the answer:

Nick Perry, Lib Dem parliamentary campaigner for Hastings & Rye said, “I am a Northern lad hailing from St Helens, and our move to Hastings last year was a dream come true, however the calls from this Tory think tank are nothing short of bizarre."

So that's it is it. What's good for Nick Perry, indeed a "dream come true", is too bizarre to contemplate for everyone else who may want to better themselves. Ironically, had the Hastings Lib Dems read the report first they'd notice that Hastings is actually one of the exceptions in the South East. That it suffers by being connected only to the periphery of London's orbit and so would not be an ideal place for adding lots of people unless there was significant increased connectivity.

So, perhaps I can get more worked up about the section that talks about a million homes for Oxford and Cambridge, if I can't get excited about the thought of London expanding by two miles in each direction. Well actually, whilst personally I am in Oxford precisely because it is small, and probably would be one of those who would leave if it became terribly much bigger, that's because I can. My IT skills can be put to use anywhere. I could move to Liverpool and get similar pay in a similar academic institution to what I'm in here. But for others it's harder. Oxford and Cambridge, outside of London, are the only two UK academic institutions that get more in research money than they do for teaching students. On the global scale they are our only two really big knowledge generators. Leunig's position seems to be that if they are to remain it that position globally, and they'd damned well better as there is precious little else our economy will thrive on if not knowledge generation in the new global village, they too have got to capitalise on "agglomeration economics", to attract a real thriving community from around the world and the UK that services the expansion of the best brains in Britain in their subjects.

Of course here in Oxford, we can't even agree on whether it is right to have four thousand extra new homes, let alone a million. Our heads are simply not in the right place to hear the logic of what Leunig is telling us. But even if it does become someone's policy, should we be so scared of it? On the one hand, yes, clearly haphazard development of a million homes in a rural county is not on. But if we're looking at a new world order, with population migrations the like of which Britain has not seen since the Industrial Revolution urbanized Britain's population and gave rise largely to those northern towns, then we ought to be looking at new urban forms as well.

Here's a model from a book called "Car Free Cities" by a chap called J H Crawford I came across a decade or so ago in my reading up for the last Oxford Local Plan, that shows how a city of a million population can be fitted into a ten by ten mile area with development on only 20% of the square, where, thanks to rapid transit systems every home is no more than thirty five minutes traveling distance from any other location in the city, every home is less than five minutes walk from open countryside and which could be developed in phases linked into or threading between existing communities.

So, the worst I can say about the report is that "the truth hurts". The truth is that current regeneration projects have and continue to fail to bring less well off former industrial areas up to the standard and the ability to match in future seen in the more prosperous south east. It is cruel and heartless in the light of this to prevent people migrating from those areas to where their skills will be better rewarded and it would be but a small imposition on London in particular to host another million or so homes. We risk our place in the global future if we fail to recognise this reality and grasp the opportunities it presents to make more people better off than regeneration ever can. At the same time we need to make local authorities and local people in declining areas responsible for their own projects to make their quality of life better, whether in decline or otherwise. We need to empower them and finance them, and watch them compete with each other for the best ideas.

At the same time we need to free up from planning constraints land in the south east to accommodate inward migrants. We need to ensure also in the process that space is made for semi-skilled and unskilled also to come from those declining areas so that the balance of people moving out of them is not skewed too heavily towards the skilled sectors.

And all the signals that make this apparent are related to land value. That London is not yet at its optimal size is proven by the fact that people still pay more for their home than the capital cost of the home - ie that land still has some residual value that people are prepared to take a gamble on rewarding them by more than it has cost them to move. That some of the "Pathfinder" areas should not have housing replaced is indicated by the fact that housing costs less than it costs to build. We'd be better buying spare houses and allowing families in the neighbouring houses to expand into hem than knocking them down and replacing them, hoping against hope that they will fill up with bright young things who do not want to join the London black hole.

But there must be something I would criticize the report for, surely, and yes, there is indeed. Tim is always saying that his ideas are a new way of thinking about land, superior to and more suitable for the modern world than that other suggested reform a hundred years ago, Land Value Tax. But the report opens with a complaint that despite trying everything regeneration has failed. Well we haven't tried everything - we haven't tried land value tax. And if any of this report is to be taken on board and implemented we need LVT first. To ensure the timely release of non-housing land for housing, to ensure that Oxford is developed to its current optimum level before adding more, and so on. If Burnley has, as the report suggests, a negative residual land value, then people settling there under my suggested system of land tax and citizens' income , are going to actually be paid for living there. Any firm setting up there will face no taxes, either on its workers, profit or its location; it's going to be around 30% better off just for that and may indeed help attract skilled work back into tax free areas.

The report praises the London Docklands development. Docklands was primarily initially successful (key to regeneration is getting a critical mass of occupiers into a newly regenerated area quickly so it can start to form a community) because the LDDC declared a rates holiday for a decade. Rebasing our tax system to land values rather than incomes or productivity would help focus sustainable communities and give massive incentives, natural incentives, for communities to attract new settlers, especially in jobs that are not necessarily competing on a global scale. With that caveat, that full scale LVT should predate any of the changes suggested in this report, I think I support virtually everything else in it.

It's not comfortable reading necessarily, but I've long held that the rise of global communications and the internet is an epochal change the likes of the printing press or the steam engine. When the steam engine came along it reshaped Britain. Why should we expect, Cnut-like, to stand in the way of the next epochal technology changing the way we live on these islands?

One thing I would say though, Tim, if you read this - I reckon calling your own report "barmy" probably makes for worse press!

Area planning decisions to be recentralized? Area committees disbanded? Is this Labour in Oxford's response to near universal calls, in political terms (not least from their own Communities Department), for greater devolution and localism in our government structures?

They're pretty much already committed to the Stalinist recentralization of all planning decisions, slightly modified now to have two wider area based development control soviets as well as a supreme soviet committee in case even these two go against the Politburo's diktat or predilections. All because Labour councillors seemingly cannot work out how they could possibly "lobby" for their constituents wishes on some applications whilst helping decide on neighbouring wards' local applications.

I prefer the Danish system I believe it is, where areas more or less the size of streets have small committees purely dedicated to development control.

But in the absence of that a much more open system of area committee planning hearings would be a step forward rather than Labour's regressive centralizing power grab. Colleagues in other authorities received different legal advice to Oxford's and hold open discussion at their area committees where parish council members usually attend en masse and they claim get better decisions, more local acceptance of decisions and an all round feeling of compromise giving the better solutions for all. The rationale is that it doesn't matter how much time objectors and applicants spend at any individual stage of the process as the applicant in particular can have all the time they like to argue their case at appeal - that it's the entire process from start to finish that has to be fair to both sides.

Despite an initial increase in time spent in planning as everyone wanted to have their say, in practice, area planning meetings are now quite sophisticated - nobody feels the need to fill five minutes because can because they know anyone else could raise questions and so few are repeated. Good chairing of course helps, something also sadly lacking in Oxford City Council in my experience.

But centralizing planning is one thing, now there are rumours that Labour wants to disband area committees entirely. I hope one of them is reading this and will assure me this is not the case, or that something better will be put in their place. I have long argued that Oxford should reparish the city, shrink the city council effectively to an executive committee and have much more local control through parish or town councils. It's really not that long ago (in its history of over a thousand years) that Headington was administered by the Headington Urban District Council for example. Parish and Town Councils can actually have quite a lot of power - indeed more or less anything a higher level authority wishes to delegate to them.

I was at Thame Town Council a few months ago doing a presentation on Community Land Trusts, and I got the great feeling that this body was one that was prepared to fight its community's corner against the district level council when it mattered. Much moreso than where the committee is really a "branch meeting" of that district and collective responsibility trumps representing your constituents. In other parts of the county parishes precept as much as the district in council tax. Even in the few parts of Oxford where there are parishes it's more like 10% of the district level rate. Headington - or rather the current North East Area Committee area - is half as big again as Thame; easily able to support a stronger more local decision making body if the City Council took its claws out by at least as much!

But again, if the nirvana of local parish councils is not available to them for some reason, there are ways in which area committees can be given real power. Again, colleagues elsewhere only appoint a handful of central portfolio holders on their executive board, and then appoint one member of each area committee as ex officio executive members. Bound by collective responsibility each area committee executive representative can take a decision on a local issue, but which would normally fall under the competence of the executive board, there and then at the area committee meeting, advised by the open discussion amongst councillors and interested public at the area committee. Further, when they are at the executive committee, these area representatives can carry a majority, so if they are mandated by their areas in respect of a proposal by one of the core portfolio holders, they can overrule the core portfolio holders; effectively giving real positive control to those local community meetings collectively.

So, Oxford Labour, I'm sure there's more than just me out there, even if we do not often attend your City Council branch committee meetings, who appreciate the fact that they exist for us if we want to have our say on something, who will be very disappointed if you dismantle this structure and, Jack Straw like, leave it half reformed and more centralized.

Who wants to join a campaign to parish Oxford city then?

...I know we do in Oxford, and I also notice that at least three of the surrounding councils use it, so I presume this is de facto the "market leader" in public access planning application systems on the web. At least at Oxford City, very little appears to have been done to the system since they implemented it six years ago - and that MAY be the council's fault for not upgrading or whatever. However I have two big issues with it that I would like as many councillors from as many authorities as possible to complain about in the hope that their authorities will start to pressure for these changes, one of which would be an enhancement but the other definitely a fix for a non-compliant system in my opinion.

1. It has never worked properly with any browser other than Internet Explorer. In particular, the mapping system does not work in Firefox (2 or 3) or Safari. It may load the first, whole borough map, but if you want to start zooming in to the site you want to look at it refuses to play. In my opinion whilst IE may be the most frequently used browser, it limits users to Windows operating systems now. It will not work properly on any other type of machine - Mac or Linux for example. If yours does work correctly, perhaps you could let me know so I can continue to nag Oxford City Council to get updates or whatever would be needed to get it working. As far as I am concerned by excluding anyone other than Windows users it does not comply at least with the spirit of e-Government.

2. RSS feeds please! At the moment the closest you can get to a regular list is a weekly application list by going through several pages of the site. Here in Oxford apparently they are planning on piloting an e-mail alert system which will necessarily involve people submitting yet more personal information to the council in order to get alerts, and it will no doubt be difficult to change the alert you want (it may for example simply mean sending out the weekly applications list for a ward or some such simple response).

RSS feeds would be far better. They can be made infinitely variable - some people might only want applications in a post code, others for telecoms masts only but borough wide, others for a ward or area committee bundle of several wards. All this should be possible with RSS feeds. Also, many councillors like to keep their constituents in touch by copying "long hand" the weekly list applicable to their ward onto their websites. RSS feeds would allow them to automate this tedious process. I myself am planning a non-council local website, ox2online.net, to complement the area's e-democracy forums and so on, and RSS feeds would be ideal.

So please, if you are reading this and work or are a councillor in any authority that uses this system for public access to planning applications, can you think about these and have a nag at your planning/IT/eDemocracy officers and see if we can't get these changes.

(Oxford City Council appears to be on "Version 7.4")

This is more than a little parochial for me, and just a tad conservative with a small "c" - it reminds me again why little changes can deeply affect people in all sorts of ways. And whilst my own thoughts on this are probably unprintable, and not only because the decision has been made by my employer and landlord and I wouldn't really want to find myself sleeping under a hedge next week, I cannot let this little bit of Oxford's history disappear without some commemoration...

Headington Hill Hall, mark II (mark I is to the far left of this picture), built by James Morrell.

When John Henry Brookes was entering his job as first principal of the Oxford City Technical School in 1928, which, by a circuitous route is the fore-runner of Oxford Brookes University (and so allows us to celebrate our "150th anniversary" in 2015), the Morrell family, already an unusually important non-university influence in Oxford had, six decades previously, built not one, but two grand houses on this side of Headington Hill and had laid out the arboertum/park in their grounds that is now Headington Hill Park, Oxford's most beautiful urban park, if I do say so myself.

Indeed, their estate straddled what is now the main Headington Road out of town, encompassing what is now South Park, Cheney Lane, Cheney School and Oxford Brookes University's main Gipsy Lane Campus, its sports centre and the Cheney Student Village (another hall of residence). They built the land-mark iron bridge across Headington Road on the hill when it replaced what is now Morrell Avenue and Old Road as the main London road, and they owned a farm and other properties on the north west side of Headington Hill Hall that are now allotments and, until yesterday at least, "Morrell Hall" of residence.

The family, which included I believe two Liberal MPs and of course the famous Lady Ottoline Morrell (who started the nearby Garsington Opera which will also, once again, be coming to an end soon I gather) had not lived in Headington Hill Hall since before the second world war, during which it and its park was requisitioned as a wartime psychiatric unit and in 1953 the family sold the hall and park to Oxford City Council until Robert Maxwell started renting it off them ("the best council house in Britain" I believe he used to describe it).

But they retained some of the land around, including that set out by then as allotments on the Marston side of Headington Hill and when the last of the family directly connected with the hall died in 1965, James Herbert Morrell (son of Emily, the last occupant of the hall, and George Herbert Morrell) they made available part of the allotments to the City Council for the development of residences for the students of the now named Oxford College of Technology which had some twenty years previously managed to acquire some of the other Morrell family estate on the other side of Headington Road, which is now our Gipsy Lane campus.

New signs, no sign of Morrell Hall (I'm not sure I'd put the lavatorial status on a road sign!

And those halls have been called Morrell Hall ever since. Until now.

Ten years ago the by then Oxford Brookes University bought land adjacent to Morrell Hall that had been used by government offices since before the war and built what is now called "Clive Booth Hall", named for Sir Clive Booth, the last director of the Oxford Polytechnic and first Vice-Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University who left office the year after I arrived at Brookes. It seems right and fair to want to commemorate the person who managed that momentous transition from polytechnic and council ownership to fully fledged independent university. Indeed I like Clive, for all that he has made his later career out of high office in some of the most powerful QUANGOs in the country - first SEEDA and now the Big Lottery Fund, he is down to earth and always friendly and happy to stop and chat. He was telling me last week in fact how flattered he was, or he thought he maybe ought to be, that there was now a bus running around Oxford with his name on the front (it stops at the halls on Marston Road)!  One of the nice things about working in a university community is that the chief executives, in my experience at least, are nowhere near as remote as they probably would be in private sector businesses of a similar size.

But the university has decided to extend the Clive Booth Hall name to the adjacent, Morrell Hall, site - they were already functioning in terms of management as one site with two identities - with the utilitarian description differentiating the two halves of the hall of either "Clive Booth Hall (ensuite)" and "Clive Booth Hall (non ensuite)".  One might wonder what these titles may be shortened to in the sometimes wicked humour of students!

In a very real sense, we're not talking about a family who happened to live on this hill side but who quite literally made the hillside, in a similar way to the Churchill family or Cavendish family created the landscape of Blenheim or Chatsworth. And so we have to say goodbye to the university's only commemoration of the family without whom the university might still be looking for a suitable home.  You could say that wittingly or unwittingly the Morrells have been the university's biggest benefactor.

"Here lies James Morrell Esq, who died at his bedside at Headington Hill Hall, Sept 12th, 1863, Aged 53" - the grave near the entrnace to St Clement's Churchyard which the family used to reach through the park via the gate on Marston Road.

New blocks are replacing the old at the former Morrell Hall, and they are to have some kind of green energy plant. Little did I suspect at the time that what was intended was to harness the power from over the road in St Clement's churchyard where James Morrell lies no doubt a-spinning in his grave!

You can find lots more information about the Morrell family and Headington Hill Hall and its history at Stephanie Jenkins' very informative Headington website (which also has other links to more information).

And in other news about destruction of historic local interest, here's now what's left of the the majestic old chestnut tree the City Council have just killed in the Headington Hill Park grounds that James Morrell planted 150 years ago:

Felled horse chestnut in Headington Park - apparently this was dangerous. Or something.

Up and down the country local authorities, independent retailers and residents complain that rents are squeezing out interesting independent retailers and creating "Clone Town Britain".

Well, I have an idea. This week the Co-operative Group agreed terms to acquire Somerfield supermarkets. There are some, say management, which directly compete with existing Co-op shops and so one or other may be up for sale. One of these is in Headington in Oxford where there is a fairly recently refurbished MidCounties Co-op store on one side of the road and a Somerfield on the other.

Some people are all excited that someone like Waitrose might step up and buy it - and in a sense there could be no better buyer as far as the Co-op goes - the other end of the market and a sort of a worker co-operative in its own right.

But as I was in a social enterprise meeting earlier today my mind wandered to Headington supermarkets (!) and I wondered if, given it is the Co-operative who have bought them, there might be mileage in proposing a sale to a more local group - perhaps a permanent base for an indoor/farmers' market, or a space which, like the Covered Market in town, could provide "protected space" for independent retailers we wanted to see revived in Headington, set up say as a secondary co-op or a community land trust type structure (or even bought by MidCounties from Co-op Group) enabling local people a say in its management, policies and ownership.

It would require some work of course actually to work out whether the relatively recent decline of independent fresh food retailers in Headington for example has been, as often claimed, because of rent and rates issues where such a facility might be able to help by lowering the cost of access. But if it does seem viable would it be worth trying?

Or would Waitrose or Sainsbury still be a more attractive offering?

It comes as little surprise to me personally that businesses in Oxford City Centre have voted not to pay an extra one per cent on their rates to create a "Business Improvement District":

And who can blame them when the basic standard of cleanliness in the city centre is currently appalling. Here's a photo I took on Saturday of an overflowing and hanging off bin attached to one of their £30,000 benches. Every other bin I saw in the city was full and many were overflowing, but that was the worst. This was early afternoon on a Saturday, the main shopping day, in a city that attracts millions of visitors a year and the place is heaving on a Saturday.

But when I was on the council, and was involved in economic development when the OX1 City Centre Management Company was established, I wanted it to be more wide-ranging than just the "corporateization" of the city centre. I wanted to create a multi-membership co-operative type organization that would involve the users of the city centre as well as the businesses and other stakeholders such as landowners.

Something does need to be done about the city centre, especially the area that will be economically depressed when the new Westgate Centre opens up attracting more and more people to the western end of the city. Although the city council are also landowners of the Westgate Centre, or most of it at least, they also own a significant number of business premises, including the Covered Market and shops in both the High and the Broad, in this eastern end of the city centre. They need to get together with the other landowners in that end of town and ensure that it remains an economically attractive place to do business.

But in the meantime I shall be writing to Mr O'Dell about my idea presently.