Blue Kipper has been involved with the "Everton for Kings Dock" movement from the start.

---

EfKD INTERVIEW MIKE STOREY ON FRIDAY, 4th OCTOBER 2002.
AND CHARLIE PARKER.

Regulars will recall our recent interview with arch anti-Houston Securities Kings Dock development Labour councilor Joe Anderson. So, to get a balance………………at our request, an interview with Mike Storey, leader of Liverpool City Council, deputy chairman of Liverpool Vision, board member of North West Development Agency, leader of Liverpool Liberal Democrats and major proponent of the Kings Waterfront project.

He also invited Charlie Parker to participate. No, not THAT Charlie Parker, THIS Charlie Parker, council employee as described on the Liverpool City Council intranet:

"CHARLIE PARKER.
Executive Director, Regeneration.
Charlie is a member of the Council's Executive Management Team, he co-chairs the External Funding Group and has a number of lead responsibilities for Council wide issues. The Regeneration Portfolio covers a wide and diverse set of services and Charlie has responsibility for Social Policy, Resource Procurement, Economic Development, regional and national policy issues around Urban Development, Planning, Transport and Social Inclusion. Charlie is also the Council's lead support for Core Cities, joint work with Manchester, all Partnerships, City Centre, Urban Renewal and Housing Transfer, Planning, Land and Development, Highways and Consultancy, Environmental Maintenance including Parks, Street Cleansing, Local Agenda 21, Recycling, Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Licensing, all the DSO's, markets, Parking, Security and Asset Management. He also has specific responsibility for Speke Garston development Company, Kensington Regeneration and Liverpool Vision.
charlie.parker@liverpool.gov.uk
0151-225-3416"

Phew, Charlie. All that and all those capitals too. There can't be enough hours in the day for a thrusting serious young VIP exec. Plainly he knows what's going on or he wouldn't have lasted in the job. Small wonder he has the unsettling presence of a Soviet Red Army political officer I once met. I suspect too he enjoys projecting the persona. Then again, look what happened to the Soviet Union. Whatever.

Interviewing can be a tricky business if you aren't sufficiently prepared, especially if you can't tape record the session. Unlike Joe Anderson there was an advance request not to tape. It was therefore important to phrase the questions properly and get them into some sort of order. Duly armed with twenty-nine basic questions (and prior responses from other interested parties) I arrived at Municipal Buildings before the appointed time of 4.30 p.m., got security-badged at reception and was shown to the reception room. As I was guided through sets of unnerving automatic swing doors the nice receptionist lady said innocently, "A member of the public actually got half way through here yesterday before getting stopped." How democratic times have changed.

There was a twenty minutes delay so I riffled through various anodyne magazines. The wait didn't bother me since I have kicked my heels for much longer in much more important Arab diwaniya. All things come to he who waits, inshallah. Personal Assistant Mary Ann Small kindly brought me a cup of coffee. In other rooms, busy clerical officers punched computers and moved vital papers from one cabinet to another. Earnest expressions abounded. These things matter if you are impressionable, which I am not.

Eventually Mary Ann showed me through more automatic swing doors, an outer office, and into the Leader's Office, wherein were Mike Storey and Charlie Parker with polite apologies for the delay. I was invited to sit at a small table with Mike on one side and Charlie on the other. Tiresomely, it was to be a head-swivelling session in more ways than one. So I addressed all the questions to Mike Storey. In this case, the way the answers came back spoke volumes. Make up your own mind.

Now, you can count me out of those who think all politicians are rogues and liars. They are mostly merely flawed human beings in an elected office in a badly flawed democracy. Small wonder the results frequently throw up - I couldn't resist the cheap metaphor - some who are indeed rogues and liars. But the overall result is that you have to pose reasonably vigorous questions to get information which a better system would automatically provide.

For example the Kings Dock project is a near-classical product of a lousy and undemocratic method of producing an important project. Ipso facto, getting to the core of the matter is frequently like trying to nail half-set jelly to the ceiling. This was no exception. I don't believe Mike Storey is a rogue but I do believe he evades some of the facts as much as any other politician trying to be all things to all men. Most of us would be little different in a similar position, which is not to excuse it. And there's no gainsaying Storey's frequent and brutally true observation that we live in a poor city, as are most of our modern provincial cities.

It would have been easy to be bull-headed and pursue the questions relentlessly. Had I done so the session would have gone on until way past midnight. In fact it lasted an hour when I had been told there was a maximum of forty minutes available in a busy schedule. In the end we were galloping through them in much the same way as the Joe Anderson interview. The results were equally uneven and unsatisfying.

The two-man act got into full swing right from the first question. I asked Mike Storey, "When did you join the board of Liverpool Vision?" and he said, "1999," and Charlie said, "Er, wasn't it '98?" I groaned inwardly. "This," I thought, "is going to be a knockabout session."

Then I asked, "Do you vote at [Liverpool Vision] board meetings when the Kings Dock project is discussed?" and Mike said, "We don't vote as such," and Charlie said, "But you do withdraw some times when it's discussed." So naturally I followed up with, "Well, how are decisions arrived at during board meetings if you don't vote on issues?" Shuffling of feet and words. I longed to have the tape recorder whirring away for posterity, as it was during the Joe Anderson interview - who, incidentally, claimed he wouldn't vote on the Kings Dock, hence this question. I had stopped groaning by this time and realised where we were headed. Nowhere. Fast. I remembered a line from much-missed Eric Morecambe after his first heart attack as he pounded his chest and said, "Keep going you fool!" Oh well.

"No," said Mike, "we have never offered the site to Liverpool Football Club," and Charlie said, "But it's owned by English Partnerships and it might have been before the present set-up." At last, a semi-straight answer to a straight question, even if I had to swivel my head again. I pointed out that Parry had told the Anfield4Ever group that they had looked at the site and claimed it is "A ridiculous place to build." Mystified looks. I moved on, thinking, "If it gets built, gloriously, Parry is going to have egg all over his shiny Suit and in his thinning, wiry hair."

So, "What were the deciding factors in allocating 'preferred bidder' status to Houston Securities? It is after all a small [Gregg] family development company worth no more than £1.8 million with no experience whatsoever of large scale developments………………?" The two-man act kicked in instantly. My neck was beginning to hurt. "Professional presentations by short listed firms…………evaluation……………officer group…………due diligence………………pros and cons………………consultants reports."

So, "Were the consultants reports unanimous in recommending the Houston Securities proposals?" Mike looked perturbed. "It doesn't work like that," he said with slight irritation, and Charlie said, "You keep looking for cut and dried answers but the situation is growing organically and is evolving all the time." I stared at the table. I have heard those words "organically" and "evolving" all my professional life and they almost always mean one thing: the plane is being flown by the seat of the pilot's pants. But I wasn't inclined to argue the point. Move on. But Charlie hung on in there: "No, this isn't the largest regeneration project, the Grosvenor Holdings development is bigger." See where this kind of thing can get you? I should have said "……………at the time Houston were selected as 'preferred bidder' and while the City Council were arguing in the courts with the Walton Group about the Chavasse Park site." Don't be diverted. Move on.

"What is the status of the proposed trams system?" Answer: decision not known, but imminent, apparently. Since the first line is due to run from Kirkby to Kings Dock it has an important (though not absolutely crucial) rôle in easing traffic flows.

"What consultation has taken place with residents local to the Kings Dock?" According to Joe Anderson, consultation with residents takes the form of knocking on a few doors, but he would say that, wouldn't he? Fact is of course there hasn't been any substantial consultation with local residents. Charlie weighed in with "Exhibitions…………LV Community Panel……………two public meetings……………presentations in Abercromby and Vauxhall wards…………small group meetings." No, there haven't been and won't be one-on-ones or large scale surveys, and there certainly won't be a city wide referendum, and, anyway, all planning documents have made it clear what was due to go on the site. All of which is true but none of which is likely to win over any undecideds. To this citizen it is all needlessly fractious and unnecessarilly overbearing.

The dynamic duo then confirmed the project has the general approval of all the Merseyside local authority councils and Government Office of the North West, subject to further detailed discussion. English Heritage and CABE both want to see detailed design proposals before final acceptance or otherwise.

Political opposition appears to exist mostly within the council Labour group and a scattering of individual councilors, though it hasn't yet manifested as a serious threat. I asked too for an opinion of Walton MP Kilfoyle's Early Day Motion 923. All it drew was a knowing small smile and a cute "No comment." It seems there's less to Kilfoyle than meets the eye.

I asked, "Apart from funding, what information is outstanding from Houston Securities?" and was told, "Final conceptual design and the planning application." Nothing else? "No." Oh. Move on.

Then I asked on what grounds was the "preferred bidder" status of Houston Securities extended after it theoretically expired in March of this year. There was some talk of a "series of hurdles" and other indeterminate waffle. In the end I had to presume it was due to organic evolution. "Nothing unusual in this," said Charlie feistily, "the Grosvenor Holdings scheme has been pushed back more than a few times. We want to get it right and avoid a planning inquiry or call-in." Well, two can get feisty. I said if any of my previous post-grad students said they would take this long to prepare a planning application I would fire them on the spot. Nor could I be bothered to remind the duo too of the delay caused by the council's legal screw-up over the Chavasse Park site. What was the point?

Money. Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post used to tell his reporters, "Always look for the money and the women." So far as we know there are no women involved in the project, so we stuck with the money. To make sure we were singing from the same hymn sheet I asked for confirmation of the funding split for the stadium/arena as follows:

Construction cost - £150 million.
European Objective One funding - £35 million.
Houston Securities - £30 million.
English Partnerships - £25 million.
North West Development Agency - £10 million.
Liverpool City Council - £10 million.
Development receipts from non-arena development - £40 million.

Duly confirmed.

So, "Who originated the funding model and when?" More shuffling of feet and words. Strangely, a reference to discussion amongst the consortium members. But no straight answer. It seems this too organically evolved. If you thought it would help, you would scream.

Okay, "What is the source of Liverpool City Council's share of the funding?" Mike looked and sounded uncomfortable. He said it could come from a variety of sources, but, no, it wasn't finalised yet. Oh. Move on.

In view of scurrilous rumours I asked, "Has any of Houston Securities share of consultants fees ever been paid from public funds for any reason and if yes, what are the details and the reasons?" Charlie was on it in a flash. "No. Shares of fees payments are clearly allocated to each party and are paid accordingly by each of them." So that's alright, then.

Then came a seminal moment. "Have all of the public sector partners approved their share of capital expenditure for the project at board or council level and is the money now ring-fenced?" No hesitation. "No." Hmmmmmm. It's getting AWFUL late in the day for this money business to get solved. Or so I thought. NOBODY, it seems, has the money in place yet. Organic……………………oh, forget it.

Charlie then confirmed the application for European Objective One funds will be made by the council. So at least we know who to blame if that part goes down.

Important money question, "Why has the project not obtained a private partner for the non-stadium elements?" Charlie was even more stone-faced. "Houston Securities have a private partner." "Oh, why has there been no public announcement?" Shrug of the shoulders. Again, "Houston Securities have a private partner." But unnamed.

Then, two more important questions, "Who underwrote or guaranteed the Houston Securities £30 million during the due diligence process?" and "What was the original method of payment of Houston Securities £30 million? Has it changed? If yes, what is the new requirement?" Each got the same response. "That………" said Mike, and Charlie finished "………is commercially sensitive." My neck twinged again.

People were waiting for Mike in the outer office. He was running late. Could we move on quickly?

Two related questions: "At what stage during the due-diligence process did you become acquainted with the fact that Houston Securities funding depended partly upon proceedings from the sale of Goodison Park?" and "When did you first tell Houston Securities they might not get planning approval for a retail development on the Goodison Park site?" No answer to the first one, but a very strong observation that, "It was made clear from the beginning, whatever anyone says, that retail development proposals would be difficult on that site." "Even in the face of claims that you only made this known two months ago?" The observation was repeated just as strongly. Somebody, somewhere, has made an extremely bad error of judgement in an element which has now assumed seemingly fundamental importance.

So, "Why did you not suggest an outline planning application for the Goodison Park site when Houston Securities were awarded 'preferred bidder' status?" Charlie said kindly, "It isn't just a matter of drawing a red line around the site plan now, you know." Yes, I did know, but what was the point of arguing a non-sequitur? Charlie went on relentlessly, "The planning legislation is different now for retail developments." Yes, I groaned inwardly again, I KNOW. The question went unanswered, but I was used to it by now. Move on. Mike was getting fidgety.

Then came confirmation that the planning application will be processed as normal and it might or might not be handled by external consultants. Nobody wanted to say how long it might take to get formal approval.

"When do you now expect to receive the planning application?" Lamely, they didn't know. Oh well.

But surely they knew, "What is the latest construction start date to enable the scheme to achieve all its targets, including receipt of Objective One funds?" To which Charlie volunteered, "Construction could start in 2006 and still qualify for Objective One funds." Mike looked ready to get to his feet.

I made a penultimate desperate attempt with, "At what stage will you consider there is no point proceeding any further with Houston Securities as 'preferred bidder' and decide to seek alternatives?" and Mike said, "That's a matter for the board of Liverpool Vision and others, not just me." I bit my bottom lip to stop myself asking if they would vote on it. Mike stood up. Time to go. I stood up too. So did Charlie.

I got one last one in. "On a scale of optimism, one to ten, what's your opinion now?" We moved toward the door. Mike said, "I was a nine. Now I'm an eight." We all shook hands. For the first and only time, his professional teacher broke through to combine with the successful politician. "And you can apologise to these guys waiting." And then, "Does this mean I won't be getting anymore of your e-mails?" "Yes," I said, "at least until next week." He sighed wearily, the weight of running a city on his shoulders while deflecting awkward questions from people like me. But at least he has Charlie to help out and sometimes finish his sentences for him. Every little bit helps.

In the outer office were two young men dressed in all-black and carrying ubiquitous computer notebook cases. I told them the delay was my fault. Anything to help ease the burden. I ambled off into Dale Street. It was a beautiful and mild evening.

So there you have it, the sound of chair legs scraping as the parties get up from the meeting table. The project is "organically evolving." The design has moved on but isn't finalised. None of the consortium have the money in place. There is no project programme worth the term. Charlie said at one point, "Don't mistake the silence for inaction." Fair enough, but the fact is the project has been lousily handled from the public's point of view. Why be surprised when poisonous fish-wife gossip abounds and various ne'er do wells put the boot in? What else can be expected when the project planning application gets postponed not once but three times? The latest word is that the planning application will be made on December 7th but why, given previous examples, should that be believed?

You can't blame people for being sceptical and you can automatically assume that personal, political and envious enemies will fill the vacuum left by official silence. Kilfoyle, for instance, has been busy telling anyone who can be bothered to listen to him on the subject that the project is dead. The October edition of his constituency propaganda sheet also carries these words on the redevelopment of Goodison Park: "I am far from convinced that the idea of a supermarket is a good one. I was told the land would be for community use, possibly an education centre." Somebody, somewhere, is telling porkies about planning use. Who is it and why? Is it Kilfoyle who is being "economical with the truth"? Is it Mike Storey and Charlie Parker? Is it Houston Securities? Is it any of the other members of the consortium?

All of it could be swept away in a trice by a joint public statement from the consortium explaining the status of the project and the proposed programme. Until that happens none of the parties involved can expect anything other than a raspberry as they make their own statements seemingly designed to protect themselves. It all carries the unmistakable stamp of the long running farces at Wembley and Picketts Lock. In Europe and the USA they get things built. In England, the Suits squabble and get us nowhere. Sadly, Kings Dock is just another symptom of a system with hardened arteries. The occasional rare success (such as Manchester's Commonwealth Games) only serves to emphasise how short we are of united effort.

The meeting with Mike Storey and Charlie Parker provided no assurance and no feeling that the project problems are on the verge of resolution. That being the case, the application of Occam's Razor points you toward a seemingly obvious conclusion. As I said, it is like nailing half set jelly to the ceiling.

It's time for constructive action. Otherwise, hand everything over to the Melledrew Tendency and have done with it. They could moan anything to death. (07/10/02)

OUR CITY - OUR FUTURE - OUR CLUB
EVERTON FOR THE KINGS DOCK