Wolverhampton businesses fight back against council policies
Thursday 24th February 2011, 11:45AM GMT.
Hundreds of businesses in Wolverhampton today began their fightback against “obstructive” council policies and red tape which they say is blighting the city.
More than 300 people packed into a special meeting to call for a major shake-up of council policies in order to help companies regenerate the city.
Spurred on by the collapse of the £300 million Summer Row shopping centre dream after more than seven years of planning, company bosses responded in droves to a rallying call from Henry Carver, managing director of Carvers Building Supplies.
Last night’s meeting at Molineux was meant to be for 250 people but at least 300 turned up, with some having to stand by the doors to hear what was being said.
The firms voted in a board for the Wolverhampton Business Group, which will now take ideas from other companies on what policies they want Wolverhampton City Council to enact.
Entrepreneurs want planning policies at the council to be business friendly and to see an end to so-called “section 106 agreements”, which force developers to fund public art, parks or other community benefits.
The policies so far are:
- Fast-track planning applications so they are completed in six weeks
- Cancel all section 106 agreements
- Stop putting preservation orders on buildings if it would make development unviable
- Stop night-time parking charges
- Create low-price parking where there is dereliction
- Get rid of occasionally used bus lanes.
Mr Carver said: “Today is the day we start our fightback — I don’t believe the council planning department is fit for purpose.
“We’ve got so much dereliction because they delayed development, they were obstructive and put ridiculous section 106 agreements on that put developers off.
“They didn’t see the link between development and jobs.” The council has already begun to relax its rules regarding planning and has lifted section 106 agreements on a number of schemes over the past year.
One of the more controversial conditions was to insist that West Midlands Police paid £30,000 for public art outside the new Bilston police station.
The designs for the work, which would have looked like fingerprints, were rejected by councillors in January.
Councillor Peter Bilson, cabinet member for regeneration and enterprise, said today: “Wolverhampton is very much open for and to business. Times are not easy and we must all pull together for the good of the city.”
He said the council supported “any genuine effort to bolster a positive, honest and constructive dialogue” between businesses and the local authority, and added that Mr Carver had “an open invitation” to speak to council chiefs.
Most Commented
Business Awards
Book a Business Awards table
Join our celebrations of the region's best in business on Thursday March 22 - book your table now
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Express & Star and Shropshire Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases
OUR NEW APP
Get the new E&S app
Download the Express & Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
expressandstar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Well said Henry Carver, for to long this council and others before it have dilly dallied and obstructied plans for development of this run down city of ours.
Report abuse
So the general gist is to do away with public art, parks and unique historic buildings and also get rid of bus lanes that encourage people to use public transport, thus creating a gridlocked city centre full of faceless chain stores, making Wolverhampton an identi-city-centre like so many of the UK’s other soulless cities?
Way to go local business people.
Report abuse
you need to know that sensible comments such as this wont be tolerated by the people who use this site
Report abuse
That’s the reason I don’t usually bother commenting! ;-)
Report abuse
Well Said!
Report abuse
It’s encouraging to see the problems with the LA planning department being discussed but James point is spot on.
You cannot remove all section 106 agreements, these help fund parks, and infrastructure. At a time when all councils have a budget shortfall, removing these would be a disaster.
Also, listed buildings are part of our heritage. Through the removal of preservation orders and fast tracking planning applications, the quality of the replacement buildings would undoubtedly fall short.
Just deal with the applications in the statutory 8 weeks!
Report abuse
Clearly 2 you havent seen the state of the bus lanes…..
They are a menace to cyclists and drivers alike. I am surprised there hasn’t yet been a fatal accident there.
Buses are more polluting than cars anyway.
Report abuse
Honestly what a great point you make, Buses are more polluting than cars.
I’ll think of that the next time I see a double decker car full of people.
Report abuse
Actually, I frequently admire the bus lane on Wednesfield Road as I sail past huge queues of cars trying to get into the City whilst sat on the 559 bus!
Report abuse
well said mr carver,its about time that the council started to listen to people like mr carver who’s family has been in wolverhampton alot long then some councillors.
Report abuse
and your evidence for this is???
Report abuse
I was rather hopeing for a statement of what businesses could do… rather than a negative list of what the council should not..
Stopping the creation of listed building would be a negative step. That is just businesses doing their usual of being too mean to spend necessary money on their properties. The planning process does need to be sped up but that is a minor component in this major problem.
This is not a good start.
Report abuse
I agree that some buildings should be preserved otherwise a repeat of “the elephant and castle” pub on the stafford road which disapeared overnight, will become a regular thing.
Report abuse
I have just read the full report in tonight’s paper. I am dismayed to notice there appear to be no manufacturers in the steering group.
Report abuse
Starscream – ‘Buses are more polluting than cars anyway.’
yes they are if you have one bus and one car, but funilly enough you can fit around 50 people on a bus so thats 50 cars off the road if its full! I despair…
Report abuse
Apart from on a couple of services when have you seen a bus with 50 people on it.
Report abuse
‘phone rings’
‘What’s that Mr Developer? Westminster Abbey is right where you want to build Gherkin 2 ?
Leave it with me . . ‘
Report abuse
Its about time something is done about councils and their planning departments. I dont really agree with getting rid of bus lanes as i do think public transport into city centres needs to be prioritised and improved. Myself i work in B’Ham and use my car to get from the sticks to the outskirts, then hop on the metro into the city. It does disapoint me with the way the area of the proposed summer row has fallen into disrepair. Its never been the most attractive side of the city as far as i can remember, but this plan ahs stopped anyone investing in it, believing its being pulled down. As for insisting on paying for art work is silly. This artwork tends to look pathetic anyway, and is it value for money?? no! lets ask companies to invest in transport for the area of the business if anything.
Report abuse
Parts of wolverhampton are a disgrace in particular Worcester Street with empty shops and derelict shops.
I believe one reason is the rents being asked by Wolverhampton Council are too high, better to have a full shop at 1/2 rent than an empty space!
Has anyone seen any benefits in being called a City? ( apart from the extra signs that needed creating and probably all new stationery etc needed printing!
Report abuse
I run Collectors Corner at 3 Worcester st, not all the shop in this street are empty and or derelit!
Report abuse
Buses are more polluting because they are very rarely full. They do single figures to the gallon, stop and start a lot and actually have very low seat occupancy over any 24 hour period.
Report abuse
Well down this is exaclty whats happening in most towns My town dudley has turned into a ghost town because of red tape and 106 money and over zelous car parking charges.
Friends of dudley town centre
Report abuse
Merry Hill had a bit to do with it as well !
Report abuse
The only definite problem I see with the proposal is ‘Stop putting preservation orders on buildings if it would make development unviable’.
Preservation orders are important, especially when they protect part of our heritage and should not be taken off just to facilitate the needs of a developer / business.
Businesses should change their plans to fit a heritage building if that is the building they wish to use.
The other points are fair though.
Report abuse
“ridiculous section 106 agreements”
No – so all you want to give us is a soulless concrete jungle? No thanks.
Report abuse
what a mess wtons in,no summer row and a big meeting at wolves,lets get the vacant shops filled first with tenants,
u might reduce charges on car parks but look at the main roads empty shops, hardly ne passing trade,
wait till the new sainsbury opens and the tesco at the royal.
they sell everything so what chance have the indpendants have.
Report abuse
the planners leave common sense at their place of study and over the years lose touch with reality, reminds me of a certain place near westminster bridge.
reduce rents , and abolish parking fees in the evening and at weekends and offer incentives to wannabe businesses and bring life back to wolverhampton,
but keep parks and other recreational facilities because the last thing we want is as the other posters have said is identikit shopping malls and a city with no soul.
Report abuse
All this talk about preservation orders – people need to take a look at what has been preserved some of it would make your eyes bleed and as for 106 orders what would you rather have the city voted best for its art or the city at the top of the unemployment list, all Henry Carver wants is pride put back into Wolverhampton
Report abuse
There are many issues which need highlighting.
Re the section 106 agreements, the key term here is ‘ridiculous’. No one is espousing the destruction of heritage or valuable listed property, least of all the local business community. What they are rallying against is the increasing use of these agreements on decrepid, derelict mostly valueless property which merely prolongs planning and discourages development.
Secondarily this is not a group of faceless corporate behemoths determined to paint our City the same colour as other faceless Cities. These are local people, with local businesses and local needs. They are determined to ensure that our City meets the needs of it’s citizens, without dereliction and hopelessness, but with thriving retail, arts and business communities. The council needs to realise it has a responsibility to promoting a culture of development, growth and jobs, across all levels from the independent market-trader and retailer to the larger local businesses.
Sort the transport, sort the parking, sort the planning, sort the business rates and give the people of our City a chance to prosper.
Report abuse
to be honest, id personally rather live in a soulless concrete jungle and have a job than live in a pretty place and have to continue on job seekers.
Report abuse
There are many issues which need highlighting.
Re the preservation orders. No one is espousing the destruction of heritage or valuable listed property, least of all the local business community. What they are rallying against is the increasing use of these orders on decrepid, derelict mostly valueless property which merely prolongs planning and discourages development.
Secondarily this is not a group of faceless corporate behemoths determined to paint our City the same colour as other faceless Cities. These are local people, with local businesses and local needs. They are determined to ensure that our City meets the needs of it’s citizens, without dereliction and hopelessness, but with thriving retail, arts and business communities. The council needs to realise it has a responsibility to promoting a culture of development, growth and jobs, across all levels from the independent market-trader and retailer to the larger local businesses.
Relax the planning regulations, broaden the transport infrastructure, be realistic about the need for and position of City Centre parking, sort the business rates in favour of local businesses and give the people of our City a chance to prosper.
Report abuse
I attended the meeting last night and although I don’t support some of his ideas, at least its a start, for which I thank Mr Carver and it will hopefully promote further discussion.
I would like to see a rent and rate free period for anyone taking on an empty shop/office in the city centre.
The free bus to the market reinstated.
First hour free, for daytime car parking.
Report abuse
rents are too high in wolverhampton.
here in bristol you can have a shop for less than wolves, with more passing trade.
Report abuse
There are some good points to agree with. parking provisions being one of them but i do think that some element of public art is a good thing for new developments. Maybe not for every applicant but we have started getting some nice artwork in the town because of it and while it might not seem like a bonus now, further down the line (if they sort out the summer row fiasco) we might actually have the artwork as a decision maker for other business to come to the town.
The 6 week timeframe is a fantastic goal though, anything to reduce the time it takes to get planning nowadays is a bonus.
Report abuse
Ghost,
those things aren’t mutually exclusive – you can have both. I think this meeting shows that business leaders in Wolverhampton (who are the lifeblood of our local economy) are trying to effect some positive change.
Perhaps the council hasn’t been dynamic enough in making Wolverhampton a good place to do business. Perhaps the planning department could do with less box tickers who insist that ‘rules are rules’ and more people who have actual experience of running businesses.
The local jobs market and City centre suggest that Wolverhampton isn’t currently a great place to do business. That suggests the council could do more to make it so. Hence business leaders applying pressure to make something happen.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Report abuse
Its easy to blame Merry hill for the decline of Dudley town, but our leaders have had 25 years to upgrade the town it still has not happened, no big food store in site!
what wrong with having two centres rather than throw the whole lot down Brierly hill!
Has for traders demanding a better deal im all for that! come on dudley traders !
friends of Dudley town centre
Report abuse
There are alot of things wrong with how long it takes planning to go throught in Wolverhampton. Other towns and cities seem to get things done alot quicker.
I don’t think its the things they shouldn’t do, they should just speed up the process! There is so much that needs sorting out, such as the ring road. Keeping the traffic going is a major problem, and maybe the council should be thinking about addressing that. Like introducing Flyovers or underpasses!
There seems to be snail like attitude @ Wolverhampton City Council!
Report abuse
I say a rather good point has been made by this Carver guy
But in ““why did he not bring this topic up when the conservatives controlled Wolverhampton Council for the last year
As he is renowned for his backing of the conservatives party and especially bus man Patten
If he loved his town as I do he would have fought the good fight to improve it over the years instead of now trying to paper over the cracks of a weak and divided government?
Where do our old go now as your chosen Party closed all the care homes and forced them into the private sector
Carver hang your head in shame
Report abuse
i think you answer your own question in your post.
Mr Carver was happy with and supported the Conservative/Libdem coalition. Since the defection of the Libdem councillor the council he is ‘now now trying to paper over the cracks of a weak and divided government’ as you say.
So previously he felt it was an alliance with purpose whereas now there is a danger the council falls back to its disjointed, divided, weak and inefficient state.
Surely that should be applauded?
Report abuse
The preservation orders are pointless, the big company’s with bottomless pockets have a way of getting around these orders, and the smaller company’s and start up’s don’t have a chance.
There are many buildings in the city that should be preserved but I don’t see the council maintaining these buildings!
Report abuse
Section 106 agreements introduced in 1990 by the tory government
Report abuse
Just more unashamed opportunism from the business community – seen it before in similarly-sized towns elsewhere in the country over the decades especially during the days of the previous Tory Government. The planning system is there to enable development but in a way that minimises adverse impacts on the environment and local community. The ‘let’s build anything anywhere because it creates jobs’ argument usually turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, to have led to new jobs making greater profits for a small number of larger businesses whilst a greater numbers of jobs are lost in numerous smaller businesses within local communities. And, of course, such freedoms must not be tolerated in the Green Belt where many business leaders live! Planning may not always get it right, but it is democratically-controlled. Finally, most property is privately-owned and thus rents are determined privately.
Report abuse
Do people really think making the first hour free on a car park would make more people want to come into wolverhampton, its only 80p first hour now on car parks by the market.
Report abuse