It gets better. Can't get full access to this articvle but note the last line: Quote The council also this week decided to grant consent to Broadway, despite reservations about the scheme's design, in order to meet a deadline for [pounds sterling10m of European ... '" www.accessmylibrary.com/article- ... -wins.html Something about signing the contracts when they did gave the council access to a pot of cash, but I can't determine what for. Possibly this: Quote The signing of the development agreement by Bradford Council and the development partnership - headed by Britain's biggest retail investment company Stannifer - also unlocks a £6 million European grant to fund road changes and the demolition programme. '" archive.thisisbradford.co.uk/200 ... 05651.html Both published about the same time. So, [idespite their own reservations[/i, the contract signing was rushed through to fund the road alterations that happened around the site. That's why we need to pay £80 million to get our land back from the people we gave it to. The council gave away the farm for some magic beans. I say "we", I mean you. I'll be paying taxes to a different authority as of next week. You'll hear the door slam as I leave.

It gets better. Can't get full access to this articvle but note the last line: Quote The council also this week decided to grant consent to Broadway, despite reservations about the scheme's design, in order to meet a deadline for [pounds sterling10m of European ... '" www.accessmylibrary.com/article- ... -wins.html Something about signing the contracts when they did gave the council access to a pot of cash, but I can't determine what for. Possibly this: Quote The signing of the development agreement by Bradford Council and the development partnership - headed by Britain's biggest retail investment company Stannifer - also unlocks a £6 million European grant to fund road changes and the demolition programme. '" archive.thisisbradford.co.uk/200 ... 05651.html Both published about the same time. So, [idespite their own reservations[/i, the contract signing was rushed through to fund the road alterations that happened around the site. That's why we need to pay £80 million to get our land back from the people we gave it to. The council gave away the farm for some magic beans. I say "we", I mean you. I'll be paying taxes to a different authority as of next week. You'll hear the door slam as I leave.

I've heard this complaint before but the old PO building is a lovely piece of architecture and complements the run of buildings into the bottom of Little Germany beautifully. Whereas the Cathedral is - well, about as uninspiring a "cathedral" as there probably is, anywhere. I've seen many better village churches. As a pride of place feature it would be embarassing. You could argue that they should knock it down as it blocks the view of Paper Hall.

I suspect the £10m was ERDF funding to put in the utilities/change the roads/pay for demolition to make way for the the Broadway development. I'm surprised that cash hasn't been clawed back TBH given that the Broadway development hasn't materialised. If it wasn't going to happen then in theory the council would run the risk of having to pay back the grant money.

The whole thing is an absolute disgrace. What can we, the people of Bradford, do about this? Write to our MPs? Contact the council? It won't do any good I shouldn't imagine, but it won't do any harm. Don't hold your breath though. I contacted the council about the Odsal scheme about a year ago, they have still not got back to me. So for anyone who wants to try: Bradford North Member for this constituency Mr Terry Rooney Party Labour Website www.terryrooneymp.co.uk Telephone House of Commons Switchboard: 020 7219 3000. Please ask for the office of Mr Terry Rooney. Letter Mr Terry Rooney, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Bradford South Member for this constituency Mr Gerry Sutcliffe Party Labour Website www.gerrysutcliffe.org.uk Email Email Mr Gerry Sutcliffe Telephone House of Commons Switchboard: 020 7219 3000. Please ask for the office of Mr Gerry Sutcliffe. Letter Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Bradford West Member for this constituency Mr Marsha Singh Party Labour Email Mr Marsha Singh cannot be contacted by email from this website. Telephone House of Commons Switchboard: 020 7219 3000. Please ask for the office of Mr Marsha Singh. Letter Mr Marsha Singh, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA This site: findyourmp.parliament.uk/ to find them and email them. Here to find and contact your councillor: www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/contact ... ouncillor/ Go on everyone, fire off a quick email.

The whole thing is an absolute disgrace. What can we, the people of Bradford, do about this? Write to our MPs? Contact the council? It won't do any good I shouldn't imagine, but it won't do any harm. Don't hold your breath though. I contacted the council about the Odsal scheme about a year ago, they have still not got back to me. So for anyone who wants to try: Bradford North Member for this constituency Mr Terry Rooney Party Labour Website www.terryrooneymp.co.uk Telephone House of Commons Switchboard: 020 7219 3000. Please ask for the office of Mr Terry Rooney. Letter Mr Terry Rooney, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Bradford South Member for this constituency Mr Gerry Sutcliffe Party Labour Website www.gerrysutcliffe.org.uk Email Email Mr Gerry Sutcliffe Telephone House of Commons Switchboard: 020 7219 3000. Please ask for the office of Mr Gerry Sutcliffe. Letter Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Bradford West Member for this constituency Mr Marsha Singh Party Labour Email Mr Marsha Singh cannot be contacted by email from this website. Telephone House of Commons Switchboard: 020 7219 3000. Please ask for the office of Mr Marsha Singh. Letter Mr Marsha Singh, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA This site: findyourmp.parliament.uk/ to find them and email them. Here to find and contact your councillor: www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/contact ... ouncillor/ Go on everyone, fire off a quick email.

Incredibly craven response from the T&A today, I thought.

I've no problems with the council chasing European money or other funding, I've done plenty of it & am doing so now. However there is no excuse for the contract with Westfield not having damages clauses for a breach of contract for delay &/or non-performance. It is in [uevery[/u standard construction contract. There is also the option for a bond(effectively an insurance the contractor pays to guarantee completion). I remember Rooney or Sutcliffe lambasting the council for these omissions. My view, as someone whose job it is to do this sort of thing for a living, is that the clauses were probably removed from the contract as an incentive to the contractor (or at their insistence). I would be sacked if I took such a gamble. In the current climate only a complete idiot would not have such clauses included.

And there we have the crux of the problem.

After all this timeand the site still being a big, embarassing blot in the city, I'd seriously expect Westfield are on the verge of trying to move out, or are going t!ts up, so to speak.

If, that does mean there's scope for us to move into there, or we are indeed agreeing to move down there, what does that mean for Odsal, and the many years of tradition we're possibly leaving behind?

No way under the sun will there be a stadium built down there.

Thank God, for starters, I'd hesitate a guess at saying that area (the Westfield site), is simply too small the accomodate the plans the board presented to us at the fans forum. I see no reason why we should be turning our attention and efforts to move out of our proper home and moving into the city centre.

I may have missed something, but where is it suggested we are?

Indeed, I've just finished watching it now. Although Gerry Sutcliffe indicates Westfield would be happy to run away from the scheme (although they're asking for £80 million to give the site back - words fail me), there's no mention of us, perhaps idle gossip. Although this comment from the first page:



Confuses me. Care to clear it up debaser?

I'm sorry, it was just be being silly. A nice idea though?

Just heard the Wakefield city centre scheme is to re-start in January. The differences I see are a determined council (of the same persuasion as the government - unlike Bradford & Leeds) & a responsible locl contractor.

I thought the same. It seems the local rag is utterly in the pocket of the council and there is not questioning its performance over this issue at all. It appears that there were questions over the viability of the scheme as early as 2002 which the Council ignored. The demolition of Broadway took place so the council could access ERDF funds and this was done without adequate consideration of wider issues if the redevelopment was to be delayed. The council have since allowed a number of deadlines to pass without penalty and are now blaming the whole shambles on the recession which began well after work should've taken place. It all adds up to an abysmal performance by councillors and their officers. How the T&A can stand up an defend this position is beyond me.

What recession?? The demolition started in 2004 and it was due to be completed in late 2007, I can`t remember any recession during that period - rather the opposite in fact.

I can still remember Waste-of-a-field representatives on Look North spouting about how we shouldn`t worry because the development was `definitely` going ahead, long before any recession. Any sensible council would have had penalty clauses locked into these contracts; the ruling cabal in Bradford should hang their heads in shame.

By the way, wasn`t one of the reasons for objections to the Superdome scheme that it would detract from this `flagship` development? Stuffed and double stuffed!!

Shhhh! You're not toeing the T&A line. It's all due to the recession which Westfield and Bradford Council obviously saw coming 2 years prior to it happening because they're such clever organisations. That's why the city centre is resembling Ground Zero.



It appears we don't have anything like a "sensible council" instead we've a bunch of chancers who have no idea how to draw up a contract and enforce it.



Make that triple stuffed. Do we really expect this bunch to see through the development of Odsal at all? I know Hood is optimistic in public but in private he must wish he was dealing with a different council.

Nope, definitely the recession. Everyone at the council and T&A says so and we are mere brainless fscktards who need our opinions spoonfeeding to us.

The collapse in commercial property really started by autumn 2007 - or at least that's when the smart money saw it coming and baled out. I was at a seminar in late 2007 when a major bank's chief economist was pointing out that commercial property was about to take a massive hit - and with domestic property to follow within a year. He cited the fact that HSBC had just sold their tower in Canary Wharf to the Spaniards for £1.1bn as evidence that THEY saw the top of the market.

I'm saying this because the likes of Wastefield will surely have seen the ominous portents by Autumn 2007 at the latest too. More likely earlier in 2007. So from that point on, at the latest, I suspect the development was suspect. And that anyone involved in commercial property at a decent level will have seen it too, not least the major retailers. That seminar was actually in a room where you could see the site...and I remember us saying then that it must cast doubt about the scheme's viability!

(postscript to HSBC: they lent the Spaniards the money to pay for the tower! Then, a few months ago, when the Spaniards were in the poo, they bought the tower back for about £700m and trousered a huge profit and got their loan repaid AND had taken loads in interest in the interim!)

But as for the T&A...well its the media arm of the Council so what do you expect?

I can see what you`re saying Adey but the real point is that (on the developer`s own published estimate) it should have been finished by late 2007 not just being started, don`t forget they were knocking down in 2004. Given an 18 month build period it should have been started early 2006, which I`d guess is well before even the earliest rumblings of the storm. For mine (if you`ll excuse the Stevoism) it`s plain slack slack and more slack from both council and the (non)developer.

northern-indymedia.org/articles/274

northern-indymedia.org/articles/274

Thats one building that should be ripped odwn, as iconic as it may seem to people, its decaying will cost millions to repair and for what gain?? to much red tape nowadays rip it down

And that awful building in Manningham with the big lawned courtyard in the middle. Smash it into the dirt that's what I say.

Tbh, I don't entirely disagree. But it's symptomatic of the way in which this council will shamelessly lie to get its way. Nobody has threatened to sue them if they don't knock it down, but that's the reason they've said they have to knok it down now.

It's been allowed to get in that state only because the powers that be want to get rid of it. Once it's gone it'll be missed just like many other buildings that were knocked down in the past e.g. Kirkgate Market, Swan Arcade, Alexandra Hotel etc etc.

The crap things proposed to be built in its place are completely anonymous. Besides as I understand it it won't get knocked down until the thing built in its place is completely let.

Given the way Bradford is going that will never happen so the Odeon's future is assured.