Policy in Practice

Monday, 22 April 2013

Dear FA; can we have our game back?

In 2011 I fell out of love with English football; the FA had pulled the final plastic rod and I kerplunked.

This week when Suarez missed lunch these feelings resurfaced and we now wait to see which moral judgement has been selected by our great Football Association.

The FA’s history is sporadically positive; the national team is treated as a cashcow, smaller teams at the top make up the numbers and teams outside the Premiership are expected to chase unobtainable, unsupported potential.

Changes in the last few years have given many hope but the issues of racism, hate and violence are still very prevalent. As we finally see goal line technology many might question why the FA cannot affect problems destroying our game on a more regular basis.

Below is the incident in 2009 which has shaped my desire for change; a despicable act that was not dealt with in any manner and is one of many incidents which show huge ineptitude on the part of our decision makers.

For those who do not realise; if a referee sees and reports an incident but no decisions on the pitch are made the FA is unable to retrospectively act.

Rooney’s elbow is not uncommon, it never has been, but media attention is constantly highlighting the very negative aspects of the game. Rooney wasn’t punished; in fact the FA barely paid any attention and he escaped from any real punishment.

These incidents are fairly common; violence is on the pitch as well as in our stands and our national sport continues to set poor examples.

Many solutions could exist; putting microphones on referees to exemplify bad behaviour and build cases, being more rigorous with identifying/affecting trouble making fans, better flexibility in decisions made on the pitch, stronger community responsibility (within localities and legislation) and a realisation that the referee can and will make mistakes; it does not exemplify ineptitude it points to human error.

Last week Sergio Aguero’s double studded stamp on David Luiz escaped punishment, yet his eyes told you aggression was his primary motive; when our fans see this, when our future players see this and when those outside football see these incidents go unpunished we effectively say football is beyond morality.

This is our beautiful game and we need to take it back; in incidents relating to violence only an independent body can make these decisions, clearly the pressure on the FA is too large and they are unable to make sound judgements.

Safety in our game needs to be independently judged; the pitch, the stands and the community would all benefit and there must be some control established in order to keep our game positive.

This could begin with an independent group making decisions on pitch incidents and in the future stretch to input from organisations such as ‘Kick it Out’.

Creativity and flexibility needs to exist in our game, especially in the FA, for example after violence during a Fenerbahce friendly the Turkish FA changed their initial decision of 2 closed door games and only admitted women and children to the fixtures.

An independent body could be creative; our FA is under too much pressure.

In my opinion Suarez deserves an 8 month ban; it is positive the FA are offering him anger management classes as it illustrates they are taking their players personal development seriously but the game is hurt beyond short term repair and only a strong change will improve its fortune.

A truly independent body dealing with pitch incidents and ignoring nonsensical regulations must exist and is the only way we can start to recover our beautiful game; without it the incidents below will continue to go unpunished and violence, deplorable actions will remain a ignored example of our game.

Saturday, 1 December 2012

Tactical Ineptitude; not Boris promoting London

This week has seen my voice become horse and my flatmates deafened; after two weeks off I’m back to watching political television.

Not much has changed; Labour’s failures are still being exampled, the Conservatives look arrogant under pressure and the Lib Dems are meekly squeaking, yet for some reason UKIP are finding a strong platform to vocalise and the Green Party, a party gaining recognition, seem absent.

Debates and hot topics have thrown up a mass of ineptitude and the Labour party have particularly disappointed; though Miliband looks more assured as party leader his content seems as sparse as past Labour promises.

Two subjects have been strongly debated this week, both giving us an insight into where our future leaders may be heading.

The Leveson Inquiry recommended statutory underpinning, an idea Mr Cameron seemed to support until officially suggested, so perhaps a peek into today’s press and recent by-election gives us a clue why.

The Rotherham by-election saw a Labour hold while also seeing UKIP’s popularity rising; a key factor in this by-election was the declining Conservative/LibDem vote, a trend that is sure to continue, but is Mr
Cameron’s decision to challenge the Leveson Inquiry a first big move in his campaigning efforts?

A unified back patting by the major print media might hint it is, today almost all lead with the story concerning SAS soldier Danny Nightingales release for illegal possession of a pistol. The press has heavily leant on this story as an example of their important role exposing injustice and fighting the corner of sensibility but perhaps Mr Cameron sees this as a crack in the door to find a sympathetic ear.

Changes will be made, we the people and some abhorrent events have created that pressure, but Cameron is in a unique position where he can affect how much damage the print media will actually have on his party; this perhaps is a juncture that could define how strategic he really is.

One Leveson supporter is the Lib Dems Nick Clegg; fitting it is that the ‘fine as we are’ media is
acknowledging his opinion with little curiosity.

The Leverson Inquiry has been very divisive, and to many feels like the people vs. corporations; whichever side you’re on if there is no real change we can be sure this discussion will trouble a future, hopefully braver Prime Minister.

For an eloquent perspective it might be an idea to seek out Charlotte Church’s opinion; her knowledge and experience is only overshadowed by her intelligent presentation of perspective.

Apart from the Leveson Inquiry the Work Program also caused a stir; though many would agree Miliband ‘got one up’ on Mr Cameron he showed a lack of policy comprehension and seemed to read from his banter pamphlet.
Perhaps he does know the positives and negatives of Labour’s equivalent, but so far he has offered no real comprehension and has missed many opportunities to challenge Cameron’s criticisms. Even less has been offered by the Liberal Democrats and at times you could be forgiven for forgetting they exist; the next year will see them fall into obscurity or tread water, in their current state they seem neither brave nor confident enough to regain the trust of its members, let alone swing voters.

When it comes to employment there is little in the way of a long term plan balancing austerity where it is needed and investment where employment can grow. This is where Miliband should learn from his party’s mistakes, and Cameron should rethink his current course.

Labour opened the avenue for private assistance and this has suited Conservatives aims, the public sector has had its wings clipped while the private sector has been encouraged to gamble for success. It’s a competition with no way of deciding a victor and the JobCentres, who are the first port of call for the unemployed, are structured to refer and not aid.

It perhaps would’ve been pertinent to rethink the current balance and spend less on short term fixes but instead we’ve furthered the third sector from the discussion and gone back to the private sector to establish the solution.

Labour and the Lib Dems are offering little in the way of solutions and skipping over any innovative discussion, perhaps at this stage of austerity we should be taking the third sector seriously and begging them for assistance, they have of course being picking up the slack dealt by such an isolated employment strategy.

This week should alert party strategists, but also serve to concern the optimistic; party politics and policy are unravelling and perhaps the coalition cracks are finally widening beyond masking.

Friday, 14 September 2012

Update on The Aston Arena (Aston Villa Leisure Centre)

The Aston Arena has been given its eviction notice; a large charity, two schools and two private clubs have been given 20 days to vacate with no measures put in place to rehouse them.

While the closure has caused community anger the impact of not rehousing these organisations will have a negative community impact.

The Charity, Gilbert Deya Ministries, works with the most deprived in the area and acts as a referral service as well as community centre; while the two schools, Aspire Learning Academy and Omar Partners, have very strong links with the Pakistani and Somali community, two community groups with very low educational attainment and are seen as difficult to reach.

Despite both Birmingham City Council and the HCA having strong property portfolios they have not worked together in any way to accommodate these imperative community groups, or search for storage until decisions are made.

Birmingham Council representatives had no idea an eviction was already served, the Council Regeneration team promised to rehouse before they knocked down yet the Aston Arena tenant now has 20 days to remove all their stock; this is a huge issue as the HCA recently cut the power to the lift and a lot of heavy items reside on the first and second floor.

The HCA is disregarding its community aspect, much of the stock would serve to strengthen community facilities (sports equipment etc), yet there is no drive by any Governing parties to make use of these natural resources.

Communities are still coming last, and with the announcement of localised and reduced Council tax eligibility we can be sure austerity is aimed at the least socially mobile and the most deprived.

Aston, Nechells and Newtown fit that bill and non-profit organisations with creative thinking to community issues continue to find themselves separate from the process.

Update - Birmingham Council are showing concern about the eviction time frame and are contacting the HCA, they seem to be working diligently to assist with rehousing but we shall have to wait and see.

Monday, 30 July 2012

An Olympic Legacy; the facility quandary

An important part of sustaining an Olympic legacy is the role a facility plays; a strategy must have strong participants as well as a clear vision of engagement.

In Birmingham we have suffered by ignoring our potential and being guilty of mismanaging our assets. Part of this problem has been a lack of encompassing strategy and natural resource use, this is something the city consistently misses and when one part of a community is supported another is encouraged to stutter.

Whether business, public or third sector, area regeneration and sustainability must co-exist in a wider policy context as well as in the immediate locality.

These are some lessons learnt in Birmingham that could assist any future plans for our Olympic venues.

Ø Minimize future losses by having Council employees encourage and monitor strategies/successes.

On the other side don’t assume your Council can create and sustain a strategy; or even be supportive. Be communicative and innovative when lobbying them for support.

Ø Legacy sites can be a key to sustaining cohesive local planning policies; they should be treated as community icons and not a future cash cow.

Ø Adopt a community investment approach to revenue, larger networks allow for sustainable futures and real legacies.

Ø Lower capacity facilities can be the platform for emerging sports, exposure can be gained from modest attendances. Netball, basketball, boxing, shooting, mixed martial arts, hockey and many other sports could benefit from, and sustain the legacy concept.

Ø In quiet periods local needs can be sought such as classroom provision, skills exchange, leisure/activities for a range of ages, sport provisions for schools/community groups and a general flexible approach to potential use.

Ø As well as leisure facilities venues can host a variety of events such as local markets, boutiques, car boots and community occasions. These encourage a link with a facility and the potential for varied community/business led use.

Ø If a private company has any responsibility to the building make sure they are held accountable to their legal responsibilities. This allows buildings to stay financially viable and not suffer a moment of ‘sink or swim’.

Ø Facilities should encourage disengaged communities to engage, even if at first they seem less financially attractive. Legacies need foundations.

Ø Think creatively, for example if you have water nearby perhaps combine water sports to your strategy. Strategies should embrace natural resources, especially if these allow expansion of a legacy concept, such as cycle routes to aforementioned resources.

Ø Split arenas for multiple sports to encourage interest, have sports days and yearly Legacy events supported by athletes. This can be an excellent way to encourage uptake of less favoured sports as well as finding the audience to sustain the interest.

Ø Sports and leisure can increase footfall as well as increasing community cohesion; if coupled with investment in high street and local businesses financially attractive hubs can feed from each other’s successes.

Ø Large events can support lower prices for local users, and these local patrons make large events sustainable and enticing.

Ø The Legacy of an Olympic venue is the selling point itself, if managed properly this selling point will sustain many years of revenue from businesses seeking the glamour of history to their conferences and meetings.

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

Fish discards, wasteful in so many ways. An idea.

As the profile picture may suggest every now and again I like to chuck a line in the water but have always eaten my catch and generally fish from the shore.

Discards have always troubled me, as has the price and availability of fish.
We live on an island yet some of our more plentiful fish are treated with premium prices; this of course is in part due to the desire to eat meat but also because we are accustomed to white fish and no bones.
Personally I am not, bones melt away or can be taken out with the spine, and a fork is pretty handy for taking away flesh.
Fish stocks need preserving but so does our sanity in food consumption, there has to be a middle ground that allows us to support the fishing industry while staying ecologically aware.

Hugh's Fish Fight doesn't do ideas, they informed me they are just campaigning on the message so I wanted to outline an idea that last year I sent to Natalia Manas-Sentis the EU Minister for Fisheries and Richard Benyon MP.

Idea
Discard is collected either during fishing, near or onshore. If offshore it could be deposited in buoyant crates and picked up by teams following either rf transmitted signals or in some other transfer method.
1) Discard is then sold through a government department or by a non-profit private business that could act in a few ways; record fish stocks and utilise the finances raised from sales to fund itself and to protect the future of fishing/fishermen, allow for better price negotiation for fish stocks especially for those fish that are not popular, or even feed some of our poor if someone felt particularly altruistic. This could be distributed through a Healthy Eating Scheme and increase the variety of fish that is eaten by the mainstream.
2) If selling was not an option due to EU regulations on competition a donation system to public organisations could work. or the fish be handed over to sellers, gratis, for a negotiation of donations to the fisheries department.

If handed to sellers, such as supermarkets, it would allow competition to exist for less premium fish, or the ways in which the less popular fish are consumed.
Two schemes could exist, one to manufacture fish products and the other to sell whole fish.
Profits/donations could be used to not only fund the scheme but also provide pension contributions to fishermen, support to unemployed fishermen, research projects and new initiatives to protect the environment.

Every five years (or a decided period) there could be a widening of protection zones and any jobs lost by fishermen could be made up by conservation roles in those zones. We would be widening the understanding of fishing within its core employees and also allowing potential innovative ideas to come out from within the industry; like the rolling not scraping trawler nets or specific sized net holes (not ideal I know).

Universities could also benefit from research projects linked to the organisation and so could the increase of employment/innovation opportunities; such as developing different feed, farming and sorting techniques.
Our general understanding of the sea would widen as would our ability to influence other nations to utilise our ideas and innovations.

Fishing needs to change, I personally go to the coast for mackerel but also eat anything else I catch, our understanding of the war on the sea needs to switch and so does the type of fish we eat.

People have become oblivious to the variety of fish available to our waters but greed has also gripped our businesses to the detriment of a sustainable lifestyle, especially in the United Kingdom.
There needs to be a balance and it has to come from changing the dynamic of fishing and eating habits; whether education or process this is a global problem and one which will cause every nation economic and social frustration.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Creative drugs policy? From the Tories...?

In 2012 the Government changed the penalties for cannabis growers and now having up to 9 plants will see a more rational approach to coping with the millions of those who do use the drug.

I wrote this piece because I have spent a lot of time working with the disengaged, especially those with habits, through my experiences I was able to speak to users, abusers and growers to try and further my understanding of the cannabis and drugs problems in a wider policy context.

The last decades Government efforts to reduce cannabis availability has caused more issues than expected and has ironically cost the NHS and Police service more time and more money than they once exerted.

Drug seizures have doubled since 2004, mostly due to cannabis, yet this supply reduction has impacted social, economic and underworld activity.

While the Police force have increased their focus on closing cannabis farms there are few statistics to show how those efforts work to improve the real problems. Many farm closures target individuals and rely on neighbourhood assistance as well as local Police knowledge but very few of these seizures actually break the stranglehold that organised crime has on this revenue stream.

These smaller seizures have encouraged the middle sized growers to expand and have also invited many new techniques in manufacturing the commodity and ways to influencing the small grower and user.

Many argue that drug seizures prove we are winning the war on drugs but in reality the implication of such moves further ostracise the ostracised and create new problems in an already ailing society. They also cause issues to those who fall victim to drugs and the law because when convicted the likelihood of reoffending is 30%, unfortunately I could find no figures to record those offending to fuel their habits.

Organised crime has also responded to these changes and has come up with a variety of ways to combat their losses. In the last 5 years crime syndicates have worked with addicts and individual users/buyers to spread that risk and have invested heavily in unscrupulous and dangerous operations to get their pound of flesh. Many are familiar with immigrants minding electrical death traps but the criminal world is now evolving to involve those who before only had smoking as their vice.

In the last two years organised crime has been drawing on the economically unsound to supply its needs, it serves as a good base of sale for cannabis, and for whatever else they want to sell (drugs and other), a partner who is invested in the product and a contact base that increases its reach while lowering risk. Losses only come in the form of finance as people are expendable and setting up a ‘grow’ has reduced hugely in cost especially as many large grow houses are Chinese owned with Chinese made products.

As one is shut down another pops up and our efforts to influence seizure figures simply show how effective we have been at recording the widespread use of this drug.

As with the alcohol industry cannabis has needed to evolve its product and a few techniques have allowed them to do this. Silica and other granule like substances have been added to cannabis in order to increase sale weight; unfortunately with horrible health impacts, blends (cannabis with non-cannabis product) are on the increase, mass quality has dropped and prices have spiralled for those considered designer strains. Even cannabis genetics have evolved and something called autoflower allows the usually gender variable plant to always flower female.

Cannabis flowers either male or female and only the female plants are smoked, for a first time grower in risk of a criminal conviction these new and expensive seeds reduce risk but also come with limitations for yield and so encourage a continuation of risk. These seeds also limit the amount of cannabis that can be grown and so allow an interesting control aspect to be maintained.

Yield and availability are a problem for smokers, many keep within their groups so they don’t lose track of suppliers, others sell to fuel their habit and tobacco is smoked without a filter in order to make their purchases go further, this added health risk heaps extra health issues on the NHS and increases the channels for fake tobaccos to be sold. There are varied ways of using cannabis and in the UK there is a real issue that unfiltered tobaccos are smoked by the majority of users.

With Police forces decreasing their numbers, but more time dedicated to hunting down small cannabis farms instead of dealing with large supplies and hard drugs, the NHS bearing the brunt of illnesses created from cut drugs/ unfiltered tobacco smoke, and small farms triumphantly being used as victories in the war against drugs we are laying no austerity measures on the criminal underworld and are allowing ordinary people to further find themselves at the mercy of organised crime and the recession.

Government research from Wilson and Stevens, ‘Understanding drug markets and how to influence them’ has already made the distinction that users as dealers ‘make little if any profit from their activities and are frequently dealing to sustain their own drug use’ yet approaches remain focussed on the user and not the supplier of large quantities or harder drugs.

The same research shows that farm cocaine at £325 a kilo makes its way to the UK at 159 times that value (£51,659), with heroin starting at £450 and selling for £75,750. Though from dealer to street cocaine only sees a 69% mark-up Heroin sees a 269% mark up mostly due to the devastating way it allows dealer and user to stay separated.

Prices of both drugs have dropped sharply in the US/EU and this has been in part down to increased networking in the local markets; users feeding users. With cannabis this is also becoming true but while for organised crime cannabis acts as an outlet of sale for other products it does not act as a gateway drug to strong highs, unlike some legal and manufactured highs.

I became interested in this subject because of the increase of cannabis use in the young people I come across and it has been echoed to me many times, it is not chemical, it is natural and it grows in the ground not a bathtub.

Is there an answer? California would say so, it certainly saved their economy but they are not without social irresponsibility, Holland feels it can work but is looking to stop the tourist trade from usurping its other qualities and many other nations such as Spain are adopting a more subtle approach to marijuana’s social and criminal impacts.

In Britain we have barely scratched the surface of the debate because party politics always comes first but in an age when our understanding of economics and sustainability is not alleviating the problem perhaps we should at least try and get a grip of our nation’s problems rather than forcing outdated methods on a bucking population.

A discussion needs to be had, a serious one, not with the final solution to decriminalise as many would call for but to educate the decision makers so they can make best social and economic use of this growing issue.

Studies show that cannabis use for those between 16 and 24 years of age is on the decrease but is showing that harder and legal highs are on the increase; a user may not have had a toke due to not wanting to smoke but may have taken MKat or one of its variants.

For the same period statistics from Drugs Misuse Declared (2011) had 8 types of drugs on the increase including cannabis and cocaine. This data’s figures are supported by the estimation that up to 303,700 people have taken cocaine in their lifetime and 1,017,300 taken cannabis. These figures also estimate that up to 75,600 16-24 year olds have taken cocaine in their lifetime and 241,400 have taken cannabis. Within the last month the research estimates there would have been around 31,200 cocaine users between 16-59 with 133,200 cannabis users; yet an estimated 21 cannabis farms are found every day (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17888762) and in 2009/2010 21,337 seizures of cocaine were made with 176,578 for cannabis. (Seizures of Drugs in England and Wales, 2009/2010).

This sort of understanding and reporting underestimates use, much like our understanding of the war on drugs in general. The figures go on to suggest that 33% of respondents see occasional cannabis use as acceptable and 3% are okay with frequent use.

The research is useful but statistical studies on sensitive subjects should add ideas and not form policy, similarly the alcopop lifestyle misinterpreted our understanding of the drinking culture and we are at the mercy of a commercial world; this same world saw it fit to socially exclude tobacco rather than taking it away.

The response to the war on drugs has been to attack the users and because growing cannabis is a fairly unprofessional endeavour that can be started by anybody we have seen seizures of harder drugs on the decrease. Since the fight to stop cannabis went into overdrive in the early 2000’s cocaine and heroin seizures have decreased significantly whereas seizures of cannabis plants have increased with 83% being medium sized grows of under 50 plants.

The aspect of it being just a plant has finally hit home with this Government and they have created a much improved approach to deal with the social issues by lessening punishments for those growing less than 9 plants, if the plant is 40g or less.

This could bring about an interesting option for decision makers looking to diminish the black market and use cannabis as a wider tool for economic influence.

“It’s just a plant” is something uttered by those growers/users that allowed me to talk to them and they are indeed right, but it seems that the only people that currently benefit from this plant are the pharmaceutical companies who are lobbying to have control over its use and crime syndicates who operate in as wide context as they can.

The underworld is continually developing and operational changes have allowed their profits to Increase and further their activity. Gun crime is on the increase, many users are less connected with their communities (unless you include other users) and the control over areas is beginning to move to gang culture fuelled by organised crime, or by the organised criminals themselves.

A better approach could see huge tax revenues from seeds and product (estimated at £6billion), less outlets for the underworld to sell from and more time for Police forces to concentrate on serious crime; surely the influence and scaremongering of Harry Anslinger is behind us and we should look at how Canada decided the US was clueless in their response to soft drugs.

This discussion already occurs amongst the millions of users but also amongst growers who have had very interesting things to say. In the case of auto flowering seeds genetic development could allow Governments to create revenues for seed sales, including to pharmaceutical companies, and have a better statistical understanding of the role cannabis is playing in a society. In Britain we already maintain a vast national seed bank and many would agree that innovative horticulture and agriculture has a strong part to play on our increasing demand for food and sustainable energy.

In an era when manufacturing has slumped and engineers have been told to go into sales many young men with horticulture interest and skills are told to search for an apprenticeship in a job that might not exist in 5 years; surely when you consider biomass and food sustainability those skills accrued sustaining their vice might actually prove valuable?

Are the Netherland’s flower and seed exports accidental or are they enabled and sustained by those we in the UK perceive as living ‘misspent lives’? Many growers I met also showed off their indoor and outdoor vegetable/fruit patches created from the love of growing and a wider understanding of horticulture.

The future of those with ‘misspent lives’ could see them developing the plants/fuel of the future, electricians are clearly finding work somewhere and sales of hydroponic kits are creating a stable tax revenue stream for the Government.

Similarly development of growing techniques, especially using LED lights (remember those engineers now in sales), will definitely be the future of agriculture and energy saving products so surely we should be the provider of this technology and not the client as we have become in most aspects of international manufacturing.

Cannabis has its own offerings and in hemp a variant of the strain which has a low THC and high cannabidiol level.

Hemp has traditionally been used for paper, food and oil and is preferable to marijuana due to higher levels of fibre but cannabis that is smoked also shares these genetics and as Canada and China has found the fibres from these products can sustain a huge variety of uses and exports including plastics; all with biodegradable attributes.

We lack the ability to research the wider potential of this plant not because it is illegal but because we are scared of the discussion. Yet this could be of huge economic and social value even if it costs a party a few votes. The whole understanding of horticulture will soon merge with technology and mixed uses will have to exist, not only is it irresponsible to miss this opportunity but it is irresponsible to let criminals keep feeding off our weak while treating the disengaged as the main problem.

Thursday, 26 April 2012

The Homes Agency

Struck am I at the lack of direction the Home and Communities Agency (HCA) places on communities; it seems best economic value is the direction of play and community cohesion is very much off the agenda.

It exists, but only when it’s needed to exemplify a responsibility to communities in a context that already exists, such as the 92 hectares transferred to the Parks Trust in Milton Keynes.

But what about cities that are already squashed and face issues of social exclusion such as Bradford or Birmingham; how do the HCA deal with their needs?

Best economic use is very much at play here; it is the deciding factor in establishing ‘site value’ and plays a huge part in the redevelopment of the local climate.

In Bradford the question of demolishing the landmark Odeon cinema has been raging for a while, Yorkshire Forward (a government QUANGO) purchased the site to redevelop/demolish in 2003 and in 2012 nothing has changed with the HCA now responbile.

Campaigns and local efforts have done little to dissuade the HCA it’s a landmark worth keeping even though the building has a strong and important history predating most of the city’s residents.

Many efforts were made to rescue to building and the Bradford Odeon Rescue Group even presented a £3million cheque and architect plans to Yorkshire Forward in order to buy the cinema.

No vision was established, community efforts were ignored and the question of best economic use remains. The Bradford Odeon lays hidden behind a mask of bureaucracy; quite literally, and while it cannot even be out of sight clearly its wrapping is trying to put it out of mind.

The once beautiful Odeon is adjacent to the £24.4 million Bradford mirror pool/foundations and is complemented by the Bradford Alhambra. It looks tired but what building wouldn’t after many years of neglect and even less attention to exploring its potential.

While I am in favour of best economic use when it represents a wider vision I believe that value has to be attributed to landmarks and those parts of our cities that evoke nostalgia and historical impact/interest. If we’re to have truly cohesive cities then pride needs to be tangible, especially when efforts by its local and regional stakeholders are so strong.

Our national policies may look to creating an influx of investment to cities but that population needs to feel connected to its surroundings and its decision makers; it seems the HCA has trouble committing communities to their process.

Their lack of participation and decisiveness has created a chasm of wasted time for those trying to save the 1930’s landmark with those making the effort probably feeling like nuisances to the cause rather than engaging members of their community.

This lack of participation also stretches to another city beginning with B but in very different circumstances. The Aston Arena (formerly Aston Villa Leisure Centre) sits on something called the Serpentine Site and is part of a wider regeneration plan. Advantage West Midlands (AWM), another QUANGO, bought the site in 2006 and then passed on its asset to the HCA when they were dissolved. AWM wanted to explore leisure possibilities for the site and the council also wanted to invite options regarding an Olympic sized swimming pool.

In March 2012 despite complaints from local/national organisations and residents the Aston, Newtown and Lozells Area Action Plan would not see sport, leisure and community on the agenda and instead B1 uses were established for this and wider site sales. Suggestions of D1 and D2 were proposed, as to incorporate the Olympic pool vision, but planners rejected this varied use option on the Serpentine Site; a site adjacent to a river, a lake, a park, Premiership football club and a community.

Since then the HCA has been looking at options for the Serpentine Site (phase 1) and the other sites around it for future developments, phase 2 and 3.

The story of the Serpentine Site is an interesting one; Asda built a store on the site and in 1980 with Aston Villa FC built the Aston Villa Leisure Centre next to it. When Asda left the site to build a new store in Minworth a maintenance lease remained with them for the exterior of the Aston Villa Leisure Centre and Serpentine Site.

In 2007 AWM took Asda to task on their maintenance liabilities due to a leaking roof and general exterior wear, after two years they finally sent their contractors to do the work but unfortunately poor quality workmanship and a break in the job caused heavy weather to destroy the top floor, squash courts, boxing gym and many second floor rooms.

AWM once again contacted Asda about this issue and a quote was created to deal with the repairs inside the building. Some repairs were done but the top floor was totally ignored with the arena ventilation shut down and vents sealed. These sealed vents did not stay sealed and leaks into the arena were regular. This made the Arena economically strangled but AWM were finally making some headway with Asda.

Since that time the HCA has not worked to keep any of AWM’s promises and has even taken away the Arenas £45,000 income it receives from Aston Villa for matchday parking. It is of course the landlord.

The Aston Arena CIC, the HCA’s ‘caretakers’, have a sitting tenancy within the building and little support from the HCA, Asda or Birmingham City Council on maintaining its damaged interior. While the CIC would happily explore more repairs, for example it has created new rooms in damaged squash courts, it cannot invest heavily or gain any finance or funding due to its sitting tenancy of one month. Their economic prosperity is decreased with a non-working heating system despite efforts from the CIC to explore Birmingham Core Draft on energy sustainability and delivering quotes for heating systems to relevant organisations.

The CIC has sought partnerships with the local Parish Church, a canoe and activity club Freax, the Scouts, Boys Brigade, YOT, West Midlands Police, SportEngland, Birmingham Ballers Project, UK Hockey, two independent schools, local community groups providing support for female education/leisure and youth engagement, Sunni Mosques of Birmingham and the Somali Community; so far these groups are not high on the HCA agenda and any questions on future site use has you directed to the site seller Savills.

Commercially amongst others Ricky Hatton Promotions and SkySports are interested, and it seems the CIC’s desire is to reuse those revenues to provide discounted and gratis facility use to the community.

The possibility of the Aston Arena existing in 20 years is bleak, due to planning regulations that state any facilities should be replaced (it should have stated a new facility should be built), but in the next 10 years surely community cohesion and community assets can go hand in hand?

The HCA has not considered the community benefit such a building has. It’s not pretty but it is extremely versatile providing many function and class rooms, courts, gym spaces and a hall/event room providing a capacity of 4500; or two 7-a-side indoor football pitches and a full sized basketball court.

It is an asset whichever way you look at it, economically sound and versatile it could be a platform for the future AAP to spring from. The area certainly needs it. Couple that with a community that would benefit from this sized venue especially for weddings, shows, events and gigs it is shocking that the marry of private and public has not been sought before.

But where is the community in HCA? It sits with future developments from unknown companies in a city that has many other sites pushing for redevelopment.

The same can be said for Bradford but at least Bradford has a plan for its future. In either case community ambition is second to development and an intelligent system to redevelopment that can merge both community and economic prosperity is absent.

Short medium and long term has gone, it is one or the other; our leaders should use community ingenuity to form a base to prosper on, not tell us what we need and how we need it.

I hope both sites, and the many others that exist across the country find their balance, otherwise asset stripping will leave our communities with even less ability to engage and influence their future.

Update -
In both cases listed it seems the Council Regeneration teams will be advising the HCA, this seems like a get out clause for them engage properly in decisions and simply stick to the best economic use principle.
Why have a team deciding on plans (Planners), another deciding on validity (Regeneration) and then one to pass on these ideas (HCA) to the future auctioneers? Four organisations to make one decision that seems to frustrate communities....baffling, expensive and wasteful.