HOME   ARCHIVE   GALLERY   SHOP   ABOUT US      
 

 
JOHN MERRY ON SALFORD TESCO
 

Star date: 12th January 2011

THE JOHN MERRY INTERVIEW: Part 2

ON SALFORD SHOPPING CITY AND TESCO

`Don't you think Salford Council was a bit too comfortable with Tesco during the whole process?'

At the end of last year a war broke out between Salford Council and Salford Estates, which owns Salford Shopping City. In the middle were the Precinct stall holders and shop workers, worried about their jobs. And coming up is a potentially volatile court case as Salford Estates and the Council go head to head.

Here we ask Salford Council Leader, John Merry, to justify the Tesco affair…


THE JOHN MERRY TAPES: Part 2

Background

Despite opposition from Salford Shopping City's new owners, Salford Estates, and an 8000 name petition opposing an application for planning permission for a new giant Tesco store, last October Salford Council passed the Tesco plans (see here and here and here).

It later transpired that, firstly, Tesco had already paid Salford Council £4million, out of £16million, for the land a few years before the planning meeting. And, secondly, there was an allegation in December by Salford Estates that the land bought by Tesco had been undervalued by `at least £10million' (see here).

To say that Salford Estates and Salford Council are at each others' throats would be something of an understatement. John Merry, in his interview with Salford Star editor Stephen Kingston, said nothing to disprove the theory…

Again, the interview has been kept as unedited as possible…

Stephen Kingston (SK): These problems have all come about because no-one has been transparent with the figures…
John Merry (JM): Alright, let's start at the very beginning with Salford Estates, or Praxis, which bought the Precinct. This company bought the Precinct on the understanding and knowledge that there was a site reserved for a supermarket for Tesco. And clearly that must have been taken into account in the actual price they paid for it.

Yet Salford Estates adopted a very aggressive approach in terms of the Tesco situation. We have letters we'll release in the new year which will put a somewhat different light on the claim they've made about the value of the site. But the fact remains that they have allegedly obtained an independent valuation which valued the site in excess of what we got from Tesco. So they've threatened us, and are in the process of taking us to court  to judicially revue the Tesco decision – which, incidentally, far from being a secret decision as was claimed, was actually published as a decision and wasn't called in by anybody in the city council or any political party.

We were very clear that we weren't going to draw attention to it while the planning application was on, even though we'd actually formally approved it, because if we'd mentioned it in the context of the planning decision there was a danger that it would have swayed the planning panel one way or the other.

SK: Sorry I can't accept that.
JM: Why?
SK: …because if I knew that Tesco were paying for the school then I'm sure that everyone in the planning panel knew too.
JM: I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that we didn't specifically draw attention to it on the planning panel, which is one of the things they're arguing  we should have done. I think that was Councillor Owen's contention wasn't it? Councillor Garrido wanted an assurance that we didn't mention it to the planning panel, so the two parties have contradicted themselves. But I was very clear that we didn't specifically want to draw the attention of the planning panel to that.

The question when we got this £4million was, well what happens if the planning decision doesn't go through? And the answer is `Well that's no problem, we'll pay them the £4m back and we'll borrow the money on the open market to cover that'. But it wouldn't have made sense to borrow the money up front on the open market and paid interest when we had the offer of £4m from Tesco. So we saved the council the interest on the money that would have been paid had we not accepted the money from Tescos. Are you with me so far?
SK: Don't you think that Tesco were a bit too comfortable with the council during that process?
JM: No I don't because…
SK: They were on the Pendleton Steering Group which oversaw the whole regeneration of the area…(see here)
JM: It's been earmarked for a Tesco site for years that is perfectly true, but the issue was `Did we get the right value for the site?'. We obtained a valuation which said that's what the site was worth.

Now they [Salford Estates] claim to have two other valuations which say the site was worth another £10million. We think they're rather confused about what is actually in the site – I don't think they've realised that part of the site isn't in the council's ownership and has never been in the council's ownership***. There is part of the site that is not in our ownership, so that is not what we've sold to Tesco, so we're going to be fighting this in court. And I suppose my annoyance is with the particular press release that they put out (see here) because it says `There is a revelation that this site is worth another £10m'.

That's a whole dispute - we don't accept their valuations. In order to strengthen our case we are obtaining our own independent valuation and all we have said to them is `No we are not completing the contract with Tesco – we've undertaken not to do that until we receive the valuation from our own independent valuers'. Now that seems to me to be a perfectly sensible way to proceed, given that the contract isn't due to be completed until the summer anyway.

SK: My contention is that we've talked to people on the Precinct and the stall holders and they don't want such a huge store. The actual planning guidance stated that the store must be integrated which it isn't.
JM: Can we deal with that – I too want to see it integrated
SK: But it's not is it?
JM: It can be if that road [Pendleton Way] is closed
SK: There's no plans…
JM: There are – I'm prepared to chair a group, and I've made this clear, that's going to seek to close that particular road.
SK: Even if it did it will take 3-4 years, and the store is still facing away from the Precinct and it's surrounded by car parking.
JM: I think we can integrate it, that's the point I'm making

SK: What do you think of the game plan then – why are they doing it?
JM: They want the site to themselves or they don't want the competition; you'd have to ask Salford Estates that. Now the fact remains that Salford Estates wanted to acquire that site for themselves.
SK: So if they offered the same as Tesco you'd be quite open to selling it to them?
JM: Well no, now that we're into a contractual relationship with Tesco. You'll have to ask them whether they've made an offer for that site. That might be an interesting question to ask them***. We'll be providing details early in the new year of where we're up to on that. But the fact remains that we think we got a good value for that particular site. It will be for them to try and demonstrate otherwise in a court case.

The reason they rushed into print with that press release is because, having provided them with an undertaking that we're not going to sell this site in the next few months to Tesco, we were happy to give that undertaking, and also happy to say we're getting a valuation to strengthen our case. And then, of course, they rush into press, which rather surprised me. saying our case was in tatters. That's not why we're doing it.

JM: If you're saying `Do I think that Salford Shopping City needs drastic surgery?', then yes I do think it needs drastic surgery - because it's not very good is it.
SK: I like it – cheap computer ink and cheap rizlas and filters. What more do you want?
JM: I think we want a bit more than that – I agree the cheap ink should stay there. The fact is that it provides cheap ink and does some things good, but it isn't a patch on what it used to be. Something needs to happen on there and I wish that Salford Estates would be prepared to invest some money into it…

*** We asked Salford Estates…

1. Whether the valuations of the land are wrong because part of the land was not in Salford Council's ownership?

Salford Estates replied: John Merry's comments seem misleading as he appears to be attempting to divert attention away from the substantive issue - a secret and catastrophically incompetent land deal that stands to cost the people of Salford many millions of pounds. The decision making process adopted by Salford Council and its decision makers in that deal will be exposed in due course via the legal process.

2. Whether Salford Estates had made an offer for the site?

Salford Estates replied: We have openly and actively confirmed our offer to acquire the site on matching terms so as to safeguard the future of Shopping City and deliver a better redevelopment for the whole area. That is our sole motivation in taking the action we have to date.

See The John Merry Tapes:  Part 1 here

 

NAL wrote
at 16:25:16 on 17 May 2012
Yet another murky deal involving Salford Council, selling their solds to the devil and answerable to nobody. Why o why do the people of Salford keep voting these charlatans in?
 
Tesco Church Arson wrote
at 09:25:31 on 25 January 2011
Church badly damaged in arson attack.... It looks like Tesco PLC are now preparing for the demolition and clearance in preparation for construction of its new Tesco at Pendleton. This really seems like Slum Landlord Methods Urban Regeneration Textbook 2. Time is money every little helps hey. Church badly damaged in arson attack. See Advertiser church arson story
 
The Dark Knight wrote
at 06:19:09 on 13 January 2011
John Merry "...There is part of the site that is not in our ownership, so that is not what we've sold to Tesco..." So that will be the Church site on Fitzwarren Street/Pendleton Way/Roundabout, which is not that big in the context of the whole Tesco development. I have to agree with Salford estates comment that; "...John Merry's comments seem misleading as he appears to be attempting to divert attention away from the substantive issue - a secret and catastrophically incompetent land deal that stands to cost the people of Salford many millions of pounds..." John Merry is very arrogent about borrowing £4 Million on the open market, which of course Salford Taxpayers will pay for in the end. Who would believe that a council planning commitee would not be biased after having taken £4 Millin from Tesco and facing having to borrow £4 Million on the open market. John Merry 'The Market' is not confidentto borrow £4 Million to Labour Councils under a conservative austerity driven government. If the amount was borrowed at this time very big interest rates and where is the capital amount to repay it ? 'The market' is not Salford precinct Fruit 'n' veg market. I make the assumotion that the £4 Million recieved from tesco already been spent, so on what? To quote from Eminem; It's time to shut this S*** down !
 
Mr T.J. Chakotai wrote
at 06:17:53 on 13 January 2011
I find the second part of this J. Merry interview confusing. The first thing I would like to make clear is that I/Myself come from a family of Builders and Developers. Before a building is built a planning application has to be submitted. Until a decision has been made no moneys for land can be transacted to the council from the developer. If the decision to build could impose problems for the general public, there has to be a consultation between the general public, the council, and the developer. So it would appear that these procedures have not been carried out, therefore it could be considered that there has been a breach of planning conduct by the Salford Council, and all contracts with Tesco's becomes null and void. Therefore in this situation it seems only fair to allow Salford Estates to resubmit their own offer for the land, which builders call "Gazumping a previous offer", and to my knowledge, even though it is not very ethical, it is however within the constraints of developing and purchasing law. Secondly, I agree with John Merry that the Salford Precinct needs a facelift however, the shops within the Precinct are more than suitable. The problem with the Salford Precinct is it's based on a late sixties, early seventies construct, and is aesthetically unpleasing to the eye. So all that is needed is an Architect to redesign the Precinct and give it a face lift, which in turn will bring more small businesses to the area, and give the customer a wider choice of product. I can not see what is to be gained from sticking what I consider to be an aesthetically unpleasing metal clad building, in the middle of a built up area, which only offer's it's own line in products, and will cause the smaller businesses to close, giving the customer less choice. And lets be honest Mr. John Merry, the whole idea of a shopping centre is to fulfill the needs of the potential customer, and not to further line the pockets of the Salford Council. I think once again Mr. John Merry is out of touch with what the people of Salford want and need. In all honesty I beleive that John Merry needs to take voluntary redundancy, and his position given to someone who is in touch with the people of Salford. So for the sake of every man, woman, and child, John Merry, if you really care about the people of Salford, Please, Please resign before you ruin a good city.
 
Please enter your comment below:
 
 
 
Salford Star Hoodies
Salford Star contact
Deli Lama
advertisement
 
Contact us
phone: 07957 982960
Facebook       Twitter
 
 
Recent comments
article: PETITION AND PROTEST PLANNED OVER SALFORD SCHOOL HEAD TEACHER SUSPENSION
I seriously doubt he's earned 1.5 million. If he has, it would probably explain the suspension! Probably the TV exposure has gone... [more]
article: PETITION AND PROTEST PLANNED OVER SALFORD SCHOOL HEAD TEACHER SUSPENSION
My daughter recently left and my son still attends the work drew povey and team harrop do with and for these kids you cant put int... [more]
article: SALFORD PEOPLE TO JUDGE WHETHER PLANNING COUNCILLOR BROKE RULES
Bob, those that want to buy the proposed flats would be aware of what they are buying, including the parking arrangements. If they... [more]
article: SALFORD PEOPLE TO JUDGE WHETHER PLANNING COUNCILLOR BROKE RULES
To wrote at 06.39, you clearly haven't understood my comment. Yes Salix can borrow the money, which would have to be paid back, as... [more]
article: A YEAR AFTER SALFORD CLADDING SCANDAL INDEPENDENT TENANTS MEETING TO BE HELD
I remember when you had to have an interview to get in Thorn Court.A friend of mine who lives there now says the block is on the w... [more]
 
 
 
 
 
Days
Hours
Minutes
Seconds
 
 
 

Donate

Help the Salford Star...

all donations welcome

 
 

More articles...

SALFORD TOWERBLOCK CLADDING RESIDENTS UNITE TO TACKLE PENDLETON TOGETHER

Star date: 18th July 2018

SPRUCE COURT AND THORN COURT TENANTS GET ORGANISED TO FIGHT BACK

"We're sick to death of being treated like dirt..."

Last night, tenants from Spruce Court and Thorn Court met to share concerns over dangerous cladding, fire safety, security and other issues, as they united to take on towerblock manager Pendleton Together and Salford City Council, which owns the blocks.

"They try to ignore what we're saying" insisted one tenant "They're complacent... we're sick to death of being treated like dirt...".

Full details here...

SALFORD QUAYS DEVELOPER TO AVOID £1MILLION PAYMENT WHILE NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDED

Star date: 17th July 2018

FURNESS QUAY DEVELOPER PROVIDES NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON HUGE APARTMENT SCHEME

Salford's planning scandal is to go up another gear this week when an application by developer De Trafford for 421 apartments in blocks up to 27 storeys high on the site of Furness Quay is considered by councillors. Thanks to Salford City Council policies, the developer will be providing no affordable properties, while, through 'viability' assessments it is set to avoid over £1million in planning fees.

Meanwhile, the English Cities Fund (ECf) is continuing its secrecy in relation to new apartments and an office development around Chapel Street and New Bailey.

Full details here...

A YEAR AFTER SALFORD CLADDING SCANDAL INDEPENDENT TENANTS MEETING TO BE HELD

Star date: 16th July 2018

CLADDING, SECURITY, FIRE SAFETY AND MORE TO BE DISCUSSED AT PENDLEON TENANTS MEETING

As the Grenfell Tower victims said, before the tragic fire their warnings were not listened to by the authorities. Now tenants in Spruce Court, Pendleton, who are still living with the dangerous cladding, have called an independent meeting for tomorrow, Tuesday, 17th July, to discuss cladding, security and more, while Thorn Court residents are also complaining about the same issues.

Full details here...

PETITION AND PROTEST PLANNED OVER SALFORD SCHOOL HEAD TEACHER SUSPENSION

Star date: 15th July 2018

SCHOOL PROTEST PLANNED OVER HARROP FOLD HEAD AND STAFF SUSPENSION

After Salford City Council suspended Harrop Fold School Head, Drew Povey, and three other staff members last week, supporters have launched a petition to reinstate them, while pupils and parents are planning a protest at the school this Thursday.

Full details here...

FANGIRL CELEBRATION OF SUPER-FANS COMES TO SALFORD FOR GM FRINGE

Star date: 15th July 2018

FOR THOSE WHO GO THE EXTRA MILE IN PURSUIT OF AN ICON

Fangirl by Quina Chapman
Thursday 19th and Friday 20th July
Kings Arms 7pm £6

Do you go the extra mile in pursuit of an icon? Fangirl, at the Kings Arms this Thursday and Friday, deconstructs the 'condition' through songs, rhymes and laughs. A Greater Manchester Fringe must-see, enthuses Ian Leslie.

Full details here...

 



written and produced by Salfordians for Salfordians
with attitude and love xxx