Time for a rethink on retail impact assessments

Tesco want to build a large new store on the edge of Leiston, our nearest town. Like others in the area we are worried about the impact of a store of well over 30,000 square feet gross on a town with a population of only 5,500.

For those of you who don’t know Leiston, it is about a couple of miles inland from the Suffolk coast. As a former industrial centre, it lacks the charm of a typical market town, but it has a thriving community which supports some excellent independent shops (notably two butchers, a greengrocer, a baker and a deli selling excellent fresh local produce) as well as a modest Co-op supermarket and a couple of hardware stores.

So off we went to Tesco’s road show in the local Unitarian Chapel. We were greeted by the usual collection of corporate charmers - neat PR people along with a slightly scruffier and older planner to answer the technical questions like “How big is it?” (He didn’t know.)

“The store will create 200 jobs.”

“How many full time equivalents?”

“About 100.”

“But that is gross. What about job losses when all the independents and the Co-op shut?”

“Oh no, Tesco will set up a local fund to help the stores through the opening period.”

“That’s as may be, but evidence from elsewhere shows that whatever you say at inquiry, the Tesco Death Star will wipe out the High Street.”

“Not necessarily, there’s a place in Kent where the butcher’s survived.”

“Well, that’s really reassuring.”

I know from experience that if and when the application gets to inquiry, Tesco’s retail planners will pick over the minutiae of policy and produce reams of calculations that will show a minimal impact on the existing shops. How they can keep a straight face, I don’t know. Their calculations defy logic and run contrary to common sense and past experience. But if they get it wrong, who cares? If the application gets turned down, that will be the end of the matter. And if it goes ahead and wipes out the town centre, no one will re-open the file.

Communities and Local Government have been strong on evidence-based policies. Their research projects, checking on the outcomes of programmes and policies have been legion. But no one has sought to review how retail schemes turned out and what effect they had on existing shops compared with the so-called expert predictions given at inquiry. The last bit of research I could find was dated 1998 and covered the impact of large foodstores on market towns, but did not seek to compare predicted impacts with actual outcomes. (Heaven forbid that anyone should think that this lack of action should have anything to do with the fact that Lord Sainsbury was a major Labour Party benefactor.)

No one wants to let the cat out of the bag. The whole thing is a charade. Clearly, the last thing the supermarkets want is the truth to come out – in a small town, a big foodstore will wipe out most, if not all, the independent convenience shops. The experts (are you buying or selling?) don’t want to prejudice a lucrative line in business. And the last thing the Department wants, is the world to know is quite how disastrous its polices have been for small shops and town centres.

Changing IT providers

I recently decided to rationalise my phone and broadband packages and put the entire lot with a single provider.

So I called up BT. After the irritation of pressing quite a few buttons, I got through to a human being fairly promptly (sales always answer quicker than services). And then my troubles began. First, it took an age for the person at the call centre to find the package I was after (even though they only had three on offer). “I don’t think we are doing this anymore.”

“Then why did BT send me an advert for it last week?”

“What is your number?”

“It is the same one as I told your machine. Why are you asking me again now?”

“What is you address? …….that doesn’t match the one we have on our records.”

“We’ve been living here for eight years and you send the bills to this address.”

“Would you like the 1571 service and caller identification.”

“Yes we already have them.”

“No you don’t.”

“Yes we do.”

And so it went on. But after half an hour we were through and agreed on the package – which was the one I asked for in the first place. “You’ll be sent a confirmation by e-mail and you can track your order on our website. We’ll send you your hub by post.”

When the e-mail arrives, I am concerned to see that BT have ignored what I said about my address and put in a completely different one. So I phone up to put things right and after lots of pressing buttons I get through to Bangalore or some far flung place on the Indian Sub-continent. After about 20 minutes of our trying to understand each other, I am told my problem is sorted and I will receive an e-mail to confirm by eleven o’clock the following day. No e-mail. Order tracking site shows no change.

Phone up again, reach another Indian call centre. There is obviously a problem. After being left hanging on for two periods of ten minutes (“Just hold on for two minutes sir ….sorry to keep you waiting.”) I am told it is all sorted.

Following day, no joy. Get through to UK call centre by trying a roundabout route. After much hanging around on hold, I am told that the computer will not accept changes to my address, but I can rest assured it will be sorted. Good news and bad news: the following day, the website shows that my hub will be delivered to the right address (and the wrong address as well). But the engineer will be going to the wrong address.

So I call again. On the phone for another half an hour, told that the engineer will be going to the right address, but I have lost my slot and will have to wait another day. By this time I am pretty apoplectic. If I had known, I would never have started the transfer. Next day I receive written confirmation of original appointment. Two days later a new letter arrives confirming second date – with no mention of first appointment.

I am sure BT are not alone with their breath-taking incompetence – I have had my run-ins with Sky and Talk-Talk as well as various energy providers. But the experience shows just how bad things can be.

To be fair, when it came to the broadband changeover, all went smoothly. The postman used his initiative and brought the package straight to us – rather than deliver it to the unoccupied house to which it was addressed. And when we actually met a BT person (the engineer) he could not have been more helpful.

We were told the Lord King of BA used to fly incognito to test the airline service from their customers’ viewpoint. Perhaps BT and other large-scale utility operators might follow his example? I am sure senior management cannot be aware of just how bad their service is and how frustrating it can be to everyday users.

Old surveyors don’t disappear, they simply fade away

Here's your gold watch and the shackles for your chains,

And your piece of paper, to say you left here sane.

And if you've a son who wants a good career,

Just get him to sign on the dotted line and work for 20 years.

Donovan c. 1965

Not so long ago, many people had a job for life. When they retired they simply had their leaving do, listened to a few kind words from the boss, graciously accepted the fruits of the office whip-round, said good-bye and disappeared, never to be seen again. They moved to a bungalow in Worthing and spent the rest of their days on a comfortable occupational pension, playing golf in the Findon Valley and ultimately bowls on the sea-front greens.

Things have changed. The job for life is rare. People now have portfolio careers. Sometimes redundancy forces a move. But more often than not, a move is the only way for career advancement – particularly for people at or near the top of their organisation or in specialist areas, where in-house opportunities are few and far between.

Many occupational pension schemes are closed. Those that remain are under threat. Few can afford the contributions necessary to a private scheme to take early retirement and enable them to live the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. More and more have dependent children. Government is looking to increase the age at which people qualify for state pensions.

People are fitter and healthier than they used to be. They may not have the energy they once had, but they have a wealth of useful experience. They can still make a valuable contribution to society – and besides, they don’t want to give up work entirely.

So what we are seeing, particularly amongst the self-employed, is people taking a staggered retirement, working fewer days a week, gradually winding down, before moving into retirement full-time. Many take up voluntary work.

I am now in that happy position of semi-retirement. And I’m really quite busy. I do the jobs that I like and I want. I’m becoming much more involved in the village community. And I’m enjoying it. (I have no intention of joining a bowls or golf club.)

Whether driven by a desire to remain active, or a need to keep earning, the gradual wind down into retirement is set to become increasingly popular.

Muddled Thinking

Remember Clone Town Britain (2005) by The New Economics Foundation (nef)? All right-thinking middle class people agreed with the conclusion that many our towns were dominated by national multiples and this was a Bad Thing. What we really needed was more representation from local independent retailers.

Well nef has recently has recently updated its league tables in Re-imagining the high street - Escape from Clone Town Britain. It asserts that multiple retailers are fair-weather friends, shutting up shop in the recession, leaving holes in the high street. It tells us “The towns most dependent on the biggest chains and out of town stores have proven to be most vulnerable in the economic crisis.”

So what is the UK’s worst clone town (and therefore the most vulnerable in the economic crisis)? Cambridge. Eh? Yes, Cambridge – followed by Exeter.

And who is worst off on the clone town scale in London? The deprived area of Richmond, closely followed by Putney, Hammersmith, Clapham and Hampstead. Meanwhile, the vibrant and fashionable shopping centres of Finsbury Park, Wembley, Shepherds Bush and Brentford are testament to the attraction of a high number of independents.

You may be forgiven for thinking something must be amiss. It is. The nef methodology is severely flawed. The score is assessed by members of the public who look at about 40-60 shops in what they regard as the heart of the high street. The score is calculated by adding the number of different types of shop (irrespective of sample size) to 0.75 times the percentage of independent shops. So if there are 18 different types of shop and 20% are independent, the clone score would be 18 + 0.75 x 20 = 18 + 15 = 33. A low score is “Bad” and a high score is “Good”

This methodology clearly takes no account of size of centre or the affluence of its catchment. So it favours small towns and discriminates against regional centres and large towns with strong secondary areas dominated by independents. The methodology takes no account of the Lanes in Brighton or the Pantiles in Tunbridge Wells. It discriminates against those places where you have clusters of similar shops. (Bad news for Hay-on-Wye.) And it implicitly claims that Torrington in Devon or Finsbury Park offer better shopping than Cambridge or Exeter. We’ve been to all of them and we can say it ain’t so.

So whilst we agree with some of the sentiments in Re-imagining the high street - Escape from Clone Town Britain, many of its conclusions are based on the flawed foundations of its survey methodology.

If you are interested in the dynamics of retailing and the rather schizophrenic approach that government has taken in framing its planning and competition policies take a look at http://www.hewdon.com/retailpolicy.pdf

Clochemerle?

About three years ago, someone in our village suggested that the primary school, which occasionally used our rather remote and barren playing field, needed a couple of toilets to go alongside the tea hut and equipment store.

The parish council took note. Someone else suggested that it might be difficult to raise funds merely for something as mundane as a couple of toilets. Perhaps a small pavilion would appeal more to sponsors? All thought this a good idea, so they set up a funding group under the chairmanship of a parish councillor.

The group started various fund raising events, notably a vintage car show. They began to develop ideas for the pavilion. They commissioned an architect.

Things came to a head a month ago. The committee would not share the plans with the parish council, but insisted they be brought before an open meeting. So the meeting was duly called: it was packed – standing room only. You wouldn’t have seen more people if you had offered free drinks at the Bell.

After a brief introduction by the chair of the parish council, the plans were revealed to gasps from the audience. What started as a little more than a shed, had grown to three thousand square feet with sixteen rooms. The meeting is thrown open to the floor.

“How much will it cost to build?”

“We think about £350,000?”

Does that include fees and siteworks? Where will the money come from?”

“Don’t know about costs, but there are some charities about.”

“Who is going to use it? Our village only has three hundred people – and most of those are over sixty. We cannot raise a five-a-side, let alone a whole football team; the median age of the pub cricket team which plays four games a year is sixty five.”

“Sizewell football club need a temporary pitch for two years.”

“This is madness. It’s like building a factory when you don’t know what things you want to make, how much they will cost, who will buy them and what they will fetch.”

“What we are seeing is the field of dreams approach. If we build it they will flock here.”

“How are people going to get to this pavilion? The field is at the end of a two hundred metre single track lane without passing places? Can we guarantee access for emergency vehicles? Where will people park?”

“These are details that will be ironed out later.”

“Who will run it? How much will it cost to run? How much revenue will it generate? Have you got a business plan? What was the architect’s brief?”

“Taking each question in turn: don’t know; don’t know; don’t know; no; there wasn’t one – we had a brainstorming session to see who might possibly use it.”

Up stands the chair of governors of the school who says she has no idea why anyone thought the school wanted to see the toilets provided. One of the funding committee leaps to his feet, “But the loos are totally inadequate for the car show.”

“But the only reason we have the show is to raise money for the loos.”

The meeting gradually descends into chaos. One villager insists on a show of hands in favour of pursuing the grand design. No one, not even amongst the proponents, raises a hand. Common sense prevails.

So what have we learned from our experience?

1. If you have a community or visitor project, make sure you have a realistic business plan to inform the design brief.

2. Never ever employ an architect without a clear brief.

3. Do not set up committees without reporting structures and clear lines of accountability.

4. Make sure you have the requisite expertise on any committee.

5. Carry all stakeholders with you and keep them fully informed as plans progress.

Remember the Dome – a billion pounds wasted on a politically driven project that was designed before anyone knew what was going in it and anyone had a business plan! The principles hold irrespective of the scale.

Moving House

I’ve not been blogging recently because we have just moved. It should have been plain sailing. We were merely giving up a rented property and consolidating our chattels into our house in Suffolk, where we have spent most of our weekends and many of our holidays over the last ten years.

Moving house is supposed to be nearly as stressful as bereavement or divorce. With no buying and selling involved our move should have been a breeze. But it wasn’t. We had to rid ourselves of a whole houseful of goods and chattels.

First, big items went on eBay – no problem. But it is the small things that take the sorting – kitchen kit, curtains, electrical apparatus, clothes and shoes. It is amazing how much clutter you can collect over the years – especially if you have plenty of storage space and no incentive to get rid of it. Much of the stuff had hardly been used. We found we had four toasters.

Decluttering requires an absolutely ruthless approach. Both of us were reluctant to bin things which we rationalised that we might just possibly need at some future date. In practice, I believe we felt some sort of strange sentimental attachment to all sorts of things we had used in the past. We have just about sorted things with the help of: neighbours who took some of the better items for themselves and their offspring; the bric-a-brac stall for the village fête; various charity shops; and our local council’s tip. But it has been tough.

However, I think we have learned our lesson. We shall not hang on to stuff just because we might possibly need it sometime in the future. If in doubt, we shall throw it out. Well that’s what we say now. The real test will come when we have to move from this house.

Everybody is an expert

Go into any pub and you will get as many opinions on how to run the English football team as there are drinkers at the bar. Everyone knows what Capello should have done and where he went wrong. Want to find your way to Norwich? Everybody knows the best way – and most are different. Want to know how to run the country? Just ask – you’ll get a wide range of authoritative but completely different views (mostly right wing if you are in a pub in my part of the country).

Most of these people cannot do much harm (except if they send you to Norwich from Ipswich via Bristol). But there is one area where everyone is an expert – property – where unqualified people can cause real problems. Most people have bought and sold a house or two. So they are experts on everything to do with buying and selling property, construction, development and planning. And unlike managing the England football team, some of them are in positions of power and regularly take decisions on property matters that they do not understand.

There are many examples of property projects run by amateurs that have gone off the rails.

Tales of public sector projects that have gone wrong are legion. It’s not just officers – it’s politicians as well. The Scottish Parliament cost about ten times the original budget. So did the British library – and the construction programme overran by eight years.

But the private sector can also make mistakes. Tobacco Dock is a Grade1 was refurbished and converted to a retail centre in 1990. The scheme was intended to create the Covent Garden of the East End – but it is in a predominantly residential area with pretty ordinary public transport access. The developer was and old established firm, which, if I recall correctly was in the clothing business. No one had a clue about property development – but they thought they couldn’t lose. Well they did – and in spades. The scheme cost £47 million and was eventually sold for under £10m to convert to an outlet centre. Even that was an abject failure and the lonely, sole surviving shop has now gone and the development is boarded up.

If you want your pipes fixed, you hire a plumber. If you want a new hip you go to an orthopedic surgeon. But if you want to organise a major retail or office development – you do it yourself. Because you know what you are doing. Years of boom in the residential and commercial markets have given people the belief that they cannot go wrong. “It’s only a blip, don’t worry, values will soon be on the up.” “That roof only need a couple of new tiles.” “I don’t need planning for the new dormer.”

Of course property professionals can and do get things wrong. Agents of all types can be incurable optimists. Building surveyors can miss hidden defects. But by and large a professional will know a lot more about property than an amateur. So my advice is seek the opinion of a professional. And in the unlikely event that something does go wrong – you can always sue them.

Design Panels

It was with some scepticism that, as a planning and development surveyor, I put my name forward for the Inspire East (East of England) Design Panel. I thought such bodies were principally the province of architects and designers – and largely confined their deliberations to matters of aesthetics. Well some do. But I was very pleasantly surprised to find on our first meeting that we have a wide range of development experts. Sure we have architects, landscape architects and urban designers; but our panel also includes planning policy people, transport engineers, community cohesion specialists as well as me.

Our panel sessions are really enlightening. Although I have worked with multi-disciplinary teams before, people have largely been confined to their own professional boxes: often the lead consultant (usually a designer of one sort or another) has had the last word. But in our panel we work much more as a team of equals – everyone has their say and all comments are taken on board.

So what do a local authority and developer get out of bringing a project to our design panel? First they get an honest broker – an unbiased third party view. Secondly they get the collective view of a range of experts from different disciplines, some of which they won’t have on their team. And thirdly they often get some really bright ideas – things they haven’t thought of that come from people who can stand back from the scheme and view it afresh. (You would be amazed to see how far people get with designs that simply won’t work. For example a revised layout suggested by the panel for a waterside development saved the expense of constructing three new lifting bridges.)

Other places and organisations have their own versions of design panels. As I said above, some just include architects and designers. Others include just local people – too many conflicts and petty jealousies. Some are run by individual firms - these tend to have a very narrow focus. And perhaps worst of all, there are those that comprise largely local authority members – again too many conflicts and no expertise in any aspect of design or development. (But anyone who has bought and sold a house thinks he or she is a property expert.)

So it is with considerable regret that I have to let you know that Inspire East and its design panel are being wound up – unless we find a way of funding it that will retain our independence. Bearing in mind the extent of investment in the schemes that come before the panel, the cost would not be huge. Some members may be prepared to put in time pro bono. Developers could be charged a modest levy akin to that for pre-application discussions. Or the local authority might make a contribution. Ideally, both would pay and thereby avoid accusations of conflicts of interest.

A question of identity?

We recently completed a sale of a flat. Our solicitor demanded that we produce the requisite identity – passport, utility bills etc.

“Why?”

“In case you aren’t who you say you are.”

“Pardon? You’ve bought and sold five properties for us and my wife has been dealing with you and your colleagues on behalf of her company once or twice a week for the last fifteen years.”

“I know, but rules are rules and you might be money laundering.”

“So how does our confirming we are us – which you know already – make any difference to our ability to money launder – if we were so minded – which we are not?.

I recounted this tale to my chum – who had one better. Her daughter who was a week shy of eighteen (and looks much older) wanted to buy a lottery scratch card (for which you need to be 16 or over). The woman behind the counter said

“No ID, no sale.” So mum says that she will buy it.

“Still no.”

“Why?”

“Because you’ll give it to her!”

Later that day, the daughter goes into another shop and sees her old friend Craig whom she has known for 13 years.

“No ID, no sale.”

“But we have been in the same class since we started together at primary school. You know I’ll be eighteen next week – you’re coming to my party.”

“Sorry, no. Rules are rules!”

About a year ago, a shop was reported as having refused to sell a girl a paper cutting out set for her little brother’s birthday, because she was only 14 and not allowed buy anything that contained scissors. The fact that the set was clearly designed with children in mind and marked “suitable for children over four” cut no ice at all.

The point of these three stories is not about the case for or against identity cards – which I agree with in principle, but not at the inflated price they were going to cost under the last government’s proposals. No, it is about the lack of flexibility and common sense that pervades every aspect of modern life.

What is the community?

The previous government was very fond of consultation. It spoke warmly of consulting “the community”. The Conservative green paper, “Open Source Planning” tells us it will give “local people the power to engage in genuine local planning through collaborative democracy – designing a local plan from the “bottom up”, starting with the aspirations of neighbourhoods…”

It all sounds so simple – but it is more complicated than it seems. Just who constitutes the community to be consulted and what weight should be given to whose views?

What happens when you get a divided community literally as with the Cutteslowe Wall built in Oxford in 1934 by private developers to keep out residents from the adjoining council estate? What about those divided figuratively by irreconcilable views like the voters of Barking and Dagenham?

Leaving aside such extreme cases, imagine proposals for a bypass round a village which suffers from heavy traffic. The farmer, who is most directly affected and whose land will be taken and severed, is firmly against it. People in the village, desperate to see the back of the traffic noise fumes and dirt, are all for it. Those in the surrounding area, who will lose a place to walk and unload the dog, are against. Motorists from nearby and further afield, who will avoid a congestion blackspot, think the bypass is well overdue.

At a national level, Natural England (who follow and set government policy on the natural environment) opposes the scheme because the road may go through the migration route for the local toad population. And CPRE is anti, because it opposes any new development in the countryside.

So this is all very difficult. Whose voices carry the day? Those that bring the most votes for me of course.

Third Party Appeals

The Conservative Green Paper, “Open Source Planning” proposed to introduce a right of appeal against planning decisions for third parties. Developers are worried. “It will be a nimby’s charter”. “CPRE will have a field day.”

Eric Pickles certainly wants to give more weight to the views of local residents. When developers won consent for development in the grounds of the former Warley Hospital on appeal, he argued on his website that the views of councilors and residents should not have been overturned by the Inspector – even though the planning officer conceded there were no valid grounds for refusal.

But third party appeals will only arise where the council has given consent for a development which local residents do not like.

The Green Paper says:

“…… we will limit the grounds for appeal against a local planning permission to just two:

1. that correct procedure was not followed in assessing the application, or

2. that the decision reached is in contravention of the local plan.”

We have few problems with the first point – aggrieved parties can already seek judicial review (JR) if they believe due process has not been followed. The appeal will be before a Local Government Ombudsman – which should be more straightforward, cheaper and accessible than the High Court for a JR. However, past experience with JRs suggests that people will dig up the most obscure procedural points that have little bearing on the decision under appeal. We hope the ombudsman will be able to take a pragmatic view and disregard minor technicalities if they did not materially prejudice the decision.

Again, we have no issue with the second point on matters where the local plan is unequivocal – for example no building in the green belt and limits on building heights and densities. But we have concerns where the criteria are not so cut and dried – for example where plans seek development “in keeping with the character of the area”. With the best will in the world architects and public cannot agree what constitutes good design. So anyone with a gripe about any development will be able to appeal on the grounds of poor design.

Likewise many local plans seek a certain percentage of affordable housing. Many of the target figures are now simply not financially viable. So any developer who quite reasonably negotiates a lower percentage of affordable housing will be open to third party appeal for not complying with the plan.

So we share some of the concerns of the development industry. We know there are single issue groups who will oppose almost any development. (I was indirectly involved with the King’s Cross scheme and I know the problems objectors can cause – and how much the ensuing delays and legal fees can cost the developer.) No-one living near a new scheme will countenance any loss of a view or amenity – without very good reason and/or substantial benefits (e.g. free land for a garden extension or a new village social club).

Quite apart from people who object on principle or those that wish to protect the value of their property, we have come across people who have sought judicial review just to make a nuisance of themselves to get the developers to buy them off.

We have no instant solution to these problems, but we believe government should look at limiting appeals to criteria in the local plan where it can be shown unequivocally that the proposed development does not conform. And perhaps such appeals should be limited to those with a beneficial interest in the outcome – rather than give a free rein to single issue lobby groups and those with little or no connection with the area.

More than my job’s worth?

Some years back, I saw a wonderful cartoon in “Planning”. The planner was telling his secretary that he liked to think planning combined the best of all property professions, to which she quipped “Yes: the modesty of an architect; the dress sense of a quantity surveyor; the ethics of an estate agent; and the imagination of a highway engineer.” All the attributes seem apposite – but perhaps none more so than that attributed to the highway engineer.

About three years ago, where I live in Suffolk, we suffered a plague of road signs, particularly those advising of speed limit. We have a road sign that tells me as I leave our village I may increase my speed to 40 m.p.h. Well I can if I’m daft. The road is single track with blind bends. Thirty is pushing it, even for someone who doesn’t hang around like me. Four hundred yards and I reach another road sign telling me to slow down to thirty. Why bother at all with the forty limit?

As I drive on, I have various signs telling me that: the road is bendy; to beware of toads (or are they frogs?); and to watch out for old folk should one get under the wire from the nearby home. I don’t think I’d be able to see a small toad at night when they are supposed to come out. I have never seen one of the elderly residents near the road, let alone on it. What use these signs are, I know not.

On some roads, changes in speed limit are so frequent and arbitrary that you scarcely know what speed you should be doing. The A1 around Sandy and St Neots takes some beating - as does the A12 between Wickham Market and the outskirts of Lowestoft.

We simply have too many road signs. They are ugly; most of them have their own poles rather than share; they clutter up both urban and rural environments; and they are distracting – you can easily miss the important ones in a whole tree of irrelevant and useless information. (And they also cost a fair bit.)

But once they are up, they are there to stay, no power on earth will make the people who put it there in the first place admit they were wrong. However, no-one seems to inspect the signs to make sure they are still relevant and fulfilling their function – and many of the more important ones get hidden behind trees.

And they won’t move them, even if they are obviously in the wrong place. Where my parents live in Hertfordshire they have a flashing thirty miles an hour sign sited well into the village and beyond a notoriously dangerous junction – despite vocal complaints from residents. They even replaced the sign exactly where it was originally when a speeding car skidded off the road and demolished it.

And who is to blame for all the unnecessary, confusing and badly sited signs. Yes, you have it, the highway engineer or technician. Everywhere I go they seem to get in the way, cause endless delays and generate vast amounts of unnecessary work and bureaucracy.

Even DfT seems to despair. In their report “Increasing the Understanding of Traffic Signs” they say “….it is not surprising that traffic signing is regarded by many practitioners as needing to be improved and at worst to be a disaster area." They cite:

· lack of expertise on the part of the practitioners;

· a fear of litigation if too few signs are used in a scheme – no-one gets criticised for erecting too many signs;

· the fact that in many local authorities, a number of people in difference departments or sections can erect signs, e.g. parking signs by the parking manager or cycle signs by the cycling officer; and

· the inexperience of scheme designers.

Where I used to stay in Letchworth, they allowed parking where people had to come out of their drives unsighted into fast moving traffic, but had double yellow lines on the other side of the road which abutted open space and had no emerging traffic.

Highway engineers do everything by the book – their book. They move glacial pace. My wife was recently involved with putting a dropped kerb access to a village post office. The works cost less than £500 – but the legal agreement cost over £3,000 – and it took nearly a year to put in place before the works could start.

They refused to allow enforcement in the town centre where new public realm works have been installed, because they technically needed DfT permission to move a road sign. As a result, people were parking on the pavements and driving the wrong way up one-way streets endangering life and limb. Did the local highways people care: did common sense prevail? No, neither, provided it is done by the book, Mr Jobsworth can rest safe.

So what can we do about this? Quite frankly I don’t know – highway engineers are a law unto themselves. They always say they aren’t trying to be difficult. Perhaps it’s congenital?

Time Gentlemen Please

As a result of various MMC inquiries, larger breweries were forced to sell off their tied houses. Many went to specialist pub-owning companies (pubcos). Over the years, these companies and smaller breweries with tied house estates have raised the rents of pubs to open market levels, but maintained the tie - often charging 50-100% more than a free house would pay for their wet goods.

In the village where I live in Suffolk, we have an excellent local pub (and an excellent school, but no shops). Out of a village of about 300 souls: around half a dozen are regular churchgoers; about twenty attend the WI; and around 75 frequent the pub. So it is very much the social heart of the village.

Yet it struggles to pay its way. Over the seven years to 2009, we have been through five landlords (brewery tenants) and one temporary one to provide cover when the previous incumbents did a runner leaving a trail of debt behind them. All previous tenants have lost money – it has been a financial disaster for them. The latest landlord is making more of a go of things.

In the good old days when I started frequenting licensed premises, most were tied houses – owned by the brewery. The brewery charged a pretty nominal “tied rent” and made their money by putting an inflated mark up on the beer. Everybody (except the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and real ale buffs who deplored fizzy keg beer and the lack of choice) was happy.

So it is small wonder pubs are going out of business at the rate of eight a day. At least we are fortunate in that our local authority has a planning policy that virtually prohibits change of use for the last pub in a village.

In July last year, CAMRA made a super complaint to the OFT (albeit focusing on larger pubcos). They wanted the OFT to investigate, amongst other things:

· the foreclosure of tied outlets to suppliers unable to access sales outlets directly;

· the wholesale prices paid by tied pubs for beer and other tied drinks and the level of rent paid by tied lessees; and

· the basis upon which rents for pub lessees are calculated.

Late last year OFT published its response. It said its work was "to ensure that effective competition delivers value and choice to consumers.” Its spokesman said. “Any strategy by a pub-owning company which compromises the competitive position of its tied pubs would not be sustainable, as this would result in a loss of sales. Pub-owning companies are not therefore protected from competition by virtue of the supply ties agreed with their lessees.”

The OFT concluded that it: had “not found evidence that supply ties are resulting in competition problems that are having an adverse impact on consumers.”

So what is causing the problem? The smoking ban is often cited as an issue – but most now think that is a good thing. Supermarket sales and drinking at home have affected trade. Tax increases have not helped. Attitudes to drink driving have hit rural pubs hard. But ask virtually any tied landlord what the principal problem is and he will tell you it is the level of rent and the inflated price he is paying for drinks. He can manage one, but not both at the same time.

At the risk of taking issue with such an august body as the OFT, I would point that the competitive position of tied houses is being compromised. They are closing at a rate of knots. As they do, consumer choice is being reduced. In many villages there is only one pub. Drink driving rules preclude visits to the “competition”. So, in practice, many people do not benefit from any competition at all. The pub often only has a small catchment so will struggle come what may. While rural pubs last, customers are charged inflated prices. But that is better than the alternative of the pub closing.

The last government proposed measures for to enable planners to intervene and call a pause for the community to have their say before any demolition or material change of use. John Healey, the outgoing planning minister, reminded councils that PPS4 provides tools for the authority to take account of the pub’s importance to the community before deciding on any planning application. Nick Clegg, in his statement on the “big society” said that it would give ”communities a greater say over their local planning system and saving local services such as post offices and pubs”. Let’s hope these words are followed through with actions.

Back to my village. We are all hoping the new landlord will be able to make a living and the pub will survive. (Prosper is too unrealistic a wish.) Our new landlord is more experienced than his predecessors. Trade is better true – but more importantly he has been able to take on the pub owner (a local company which values its standing in the community) and by virtue of his knowledge and experience has persuaded them to get real. To its credit, the company has reduced the rent. For our part, we are crossing our fingers, and doing our best for trade.

What will happen if the pub fails? Us locals may form a co-operative and buy it. As a pub, it is worth much less than a house – and, with a pretty tough and unequivocal local policy, our planners won’t allow it to be changed to a house if there are people willing and able to buy it and run it. What happens if you are outbid by someone who has a dream of owning a country pub? I say good luck to them, provided the pub is saved. Without a tie and an onerous rent they may well make a go of it and guarantee its future.

The Round Robin to end all Round Robins

Last week I turned up a piece that my father wrote about ten years ago when he was 75. It still makes me chuckle, so I thought I’d share it with you.

First by way of background, it’s a spoof round robin – the sort of thing you get at Christmas from distant relatives and friends telling you about their wonderful year. Don’t you hate them? You know the sort of thing, “Little Sophie is excelling at ballet, she goes for her audition at Sadlers Wells next month; she’s two years younger than most of the candidates, but her teacher has great hopes. Crispin celebrated his eighth birthday by completing the times cryptic crossword in nine minutes. The school say he is the most their gifted pupil since Darwin…..” And so it continues.

About ten years ago, my family used to get regular circular letters from a host of friends in Australia – only their children would be appearing at the Sydney Opera House or Melbourne Cricket Ground. They were enough to make anyone “speak into the big white telephone” as they say over there.

After one such missive too many, Mum and Dad decided to put together their own and send it to everyone who had sent them one. Mum has a wicked sense of humour and Dad has a way with words. It didn’t raise a titter from the Australians. But it stopped the round robins in their tracks. So here it is. You may find it useful.

December 2000

Hello again and a very Merry Christmas!

The Millennium year comes to an end and how exciting it has been – full of ups and downs.

The New Year’s honours list brought few surprises. Nigel was disappointed to receive no more than a knighthood for his services to the lingerie industry and the Temperance Society.

February and March brought two downs. First, Nigel on his knees before Her Majesty, and second, a prolonged and severe cold snap. The press blamed the government for its misguided attempts to reverse global warming. Thanks to Pat’s foresight, a substantial stock of candles and access to a peat bog saw us through the crisis.

Recovering from the cold snap and despite April’s floods, some metaphorical warmth entered our lives. As Britain’s first Olympic synchronised swimmer, Pat was invited to carry the Union Jack in Athens 2004. She will have some difficulty in handling her zimmer at the same time. But Steve Redgrave has offered to lend support and advice.

May was a quiet month, but early in June we were delighted when cousin Jean called in. She had just come from the Television Centre where she had been interviewed by Michael Parkinson. She told the story of her three months on the space station Mir. She had stunned the studio audience by saying how boring it all was. With only an O-level in Serbo-Croat, she had great difficulty in communicating with her Russian fellow travellers. She much prefers bungee jumping.

Being in her seventies and the oldest woman to go into space, the only scary episode was when, as a non-swimmer, she splashed down in the shark-infested Timor Sea. She had to wait two hours while the crew of the USS Nimitz watched the Super Bowl, before coming to her rescue.

We understand that as an after-dinner speaker Jean now commands a bigger fee than Baroness Thatcher, who is said to be fuming and has called her agent to “restore the right priorities”.

July and August were quite dead. So, whilst Ernie polished off the last chapters of his best seller, Pat led an expedition to the Himalayas. Apart from reaching the summit, she was credited with discovering the corpse of a baby yeti. Imagine her disappointment when further research revealed that it was a pekinese left behind when a group of Korean climbers had to abandon their breakfast in the midst of an avalanche.

We should not forget that August of the Queen Mother’s hundredth birthday. (Isn’t she wonderful?) We could not match her, because Uncle Harry had to wait another two days before celebrating. For him, there was, as you may know, an added bonus in that the week before, Fiona, his wife of 22, presented him with twins.

As we told you last year, grandson Ben took a commission in the army. He left his base in Hereford hurriedly at the end of the month to go on some hush-hush mission. We were all very concerned for his well-being.

September and another success, Marilyn wins the Eurovision Song Contest by an unprecedented margin with an updated version of “Yes we have no bananas!” Redolent of wartime shortages and rationing, it reduced the German Jury to a state of apoplexy. (NUL POINTS!) Modesty itself, the musical icon attributed her success to the encouragement of Sir Cliff Richard and the backing of Oasis. (Aren’t Liam and Noel little charmers?)

There were three pleasant surprises in October. First our granddaughter won an Oscar for her role in “Freddie Starr ate my hamster” – a touching account of the true story behind the tabloid headline. Her acceptance speech moved Sylvester Stallone to tears.

Then, following last year’s Nobel Prize for literature, Ernie won the Booker prize for his poignant tale of an alcoholic in Saudi Arabia – “Legless in Mecca”. Sadly, he could not accept the award in person. He was indulging his penchant for travel and exploration by leading the first spring expedition to the South Pole by camel.

Lastly, much to our relief, Ben returned to England looking sun-tanned and fit. He remains tight-lipped, but as far as we can gather he has been working for the CIA as an SAS secondee behind enemy lines in Sierra Leone. (Pat thought she caught a glimpse of him on the news after the rescue of the hostages.)

November, and more joy for Marilyn, her son Joss was awarded his doctorate. We were hardly surprised, but he was delighted to be headhunted by the Sorbonne and take the Jean-Paul Sartre chair in existential philosophy.

Later we were stunned to see Sister Mary on the news being led away in handcuffs by the police. She had been the driver of the JCB in the raid on the Dome. She was unrepentant shouting “Another blow for pensioners” as she was bustled inside the police van. Given her unblemished record and age, she should get no more than five years and could be out in three. She remains in our thoughts and prayers.

December brought some disappointment for Ernie, Nigel and Ben. After the England players called off their strike, the RFU no longer required their services against the Pumas. It would have been quite a first to have three generations running on to the pitch at Twickenham.

And now for the big news. A year has passed and we have not moved house. But we are a footloose and restless family – always looking for new horizons. At the moment, it’s a commercial secret, but the news will soon break. Needing a pied-a-terre in the great metropolis, we have just been notified that our bid for the Dome has been accepted. We shall of course have to make good the damage that Mary caused last month.

Meanwhile, watch out! Pat and Marilyn have been asked to join Naomi Campbell, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Liz Hurley and others to bare all for a 2001 David Bailey calendar for Children in Need.

With much love

Pat and Ernie

The slums of the future

With the recession, the crash of the buy-to-let market, and a serious oversupply problem, many developers have stopped building flats. Those who have not stopped altogether have cut right back on numbers and redesigned schemes, substituting houses for apartments. Good.

Over the last few years, it has been my misfortune to see numerous proposals for new developments of apartment blocks. The name of the game has been to squeeze as many as flats as possible on to the site – with little thought, if any, as to the people who will live there.

High numbers are achieved by: over-massing of blocks – too high and too deep; producing tiny flats (Parker Morris would have had a fit); and appalling design generally, particularly as regards daylighting and outlook.

Many new flats are single aspect without any external space such as a balcony or terrace. For those of you who have not experienced living in such properties - I have - they are ghastly. In the summer, those facing south and west can become stiflingly hot with limited opening windows and no possibility of through ventilation. Those facing north are depressingly gloomy – OK for troglodytes, but enough to put normal humans on Prozac. In mixed tenure schemes, such dwellings are normally reserved for social housing – especially if they overlook a car park, busy main road or railway line.

In the sixties, single aspect houses were termed back-to-backs; they were deemed unfit under slum clearance legislation, irrespective of their condition. At least you could walk out of the door into the street and open air. Now we allow developers to get away with building single aspect homes many floors above the ground with no immediate outside access. Those who build or design them should be made to live in them to see just how awful they are.

Where the development of apartment blocks is still viable, planners should look carefully at layouts and reject proposals for single aspect properties – especially those facing north and/or without balconies or terraces. Even better perhaps government could issue guidance or regulations that precluded the development of such properties entirely.