Cover story: “Done? You certainly have been!” Done? You certainly have been!

Stan Edwards has sympathy for the people of Newport as he returns with the “Friar’s Walk” sequel. 

In the summer of 2016 I submitted an future, for an aspirational vanity city The first indicator of doom was the failure article that I thought would be my last on centre scheme that never did stack up in of the developer partner Modus Corovest the subject of a decade of the demise of commercial terms from the outset – it was Newport Ltd., that became unable to the retail led regeneration compulsory never adequately appraised for the John fund 100% of the capital required to purchase order (CPO) – a tale of “unrealistic Frost Square CPO in 20062. Time and again, secure control of the development area. expectations”, where the intervention promoters of such schemes cannot seem Modus informed the council in 2009 by government funding fed, retail led, to comprehend the difference between that the previous (original) scheme regeneration CPOs left a legacy of many “want”, “need” and “demand”. The was undeliverable in the (then) current completed but half let retail schemes. approach would have been different if it economic climate. The effect was to take was a completely commercially promoted away the developer funding mechanism. “The approach would scheme, but this was one delivered by Newport City Council then decided to still public intervention through a CPO and all progress the CPO based scheme. have been different the rigours of the public interest that were The signs were there for all to see. Yes, if it was a completely supposed to accompany that. the economy had collapsed but scheme commercially promoted promoters failed to recognise the change Wellbeing and public in the pattern of retail shopping and the scheme, but this was interest urban structure. The city council had fallen one delivered by public into the trap of attempting the reversal of The CPO purpose was for redevelopment urban growth. In other words, they felt, intervention through a and the power was appropriate. However, erroneously, that if they created something compulsory purchase what we have evidence of now, which was attractive enough, the shoppers would order and all the rigours wanting all along, was that the qualifying return. The market had said “no” and the compulsory purchase empowerment council did not even seek unfettered of the public interest by Section 226 (1)(a) of the Town and independent market advice. that were supposed to Country Planning Act 1990 as amended Next came the High Court challenge accompany that.” and fulfilling the qualifying well-being of Iceland3, after which the city council condition of s.226 (1A) was only half the wriggled through the comments contained argument. in the Judge’s decision. The Judge read There is an epilogue! I have tracked The public interest for which there as a whole the relevant reports from the the Friar’s Walk scheme, Newport, on a must be a compelling case is much wider council’s Cabinet, in that they were being professional and academic level for many and must look deeper into the collateral advised “to take a course of action which years1 and there is now an eventual sale impact of the scheme as to whether it is for will best facilitate the carrying out of a to an investor. The South Wales Argus the wellbeing of the citizens or a project redevelopment scheme at John Frost Square”. recently made the headline quote, “A Done focused on just one facet of the town/ The Judge’s decision significantly held Deal” in respect of the Friar’s Walk scheme, city. The local authority promoters with that the site was to be re-marketed on the provoking Fletcher’s quote in “Porridge” – an “attention bias” will not investigate basis of existing terms and conditions and “Done? You certainly have been!” far beyond their (with the developer) that the permitted scheme could (in the

www.irrv.net No matter how you wrap this up, the argument to push the scheme. It is left Cabinet’s view) still viably be delivered, ratepayers of Newport are now stuck with to those who challenge such a scheme obtaining alternative funding from another a rent share agreement, paying a top-up of to put up the argument but they do not developer. VALUER the rent (termed an investment subsidy) of usually have the funds to raise a significant Newport City Council in October 2010 16 £500,000 per annum into the foreseeable objection or challenge. decided to seek another developer partner the expense of other factors. factors. other of expense the at adecision making in factors or indicators key certain on weight extra to place maker Anchoring – familiar: more may be which cases those or tocase, this applying consider may reader the that biases behavioural Salle’s La of some just are Below collateral damage.” never seemto consider schemesspending. These limited consumer to capture the centre, in intense competition the let city, alonethe on other in businesses ofthe impact no account blinkered takes approach isthat this trouble “The damage. collateral to consider seem never schemes These spending. consumer limited to capture centre, the in competition intense the alone let city, the in businesses other on impact the of account no takes approach blinkered this is that trouble occur. The does it that to assure manner committed adecisive, in acts then and out work all will it believes who optimist eternal –the syndrome” “developer’s as bias”.“optimism known is also This is termed behaviour, estate real of terms in what, suffered Council City Newport biases Perceptual andbehavioral off. came wheel the if loan the off paying of risk to apossible ratepayer Newport the exposed and saying was market the what against was this that Remember proceed. to development the for to pay £90 million of (PWLB)loan Board Loan Works Public a for to apply decided it funding, market get not could developer the that found vanity its in council the when but not, Iceland the in comments Judge’s the with align that Did proceed. will scheme the prospect a reasonable be must there that is arequirement CPOs under-girding is that trouble The Estate. Real Queensberry with up ended and 4 a tendency of a decision adecision of atendency case? Of course course case? Of 2008. in crash estate real to the up leading rates cap low record the of case the in as trends or patterns term long in than events recent on weight more –placing bias Primacy skill). vs. luck (i.e., attribution of terms in analyze vendors/advisors but are to difficult selecting in used widely are which records” into“track feeds this support; decision the than rather outcome bythe decision a of quality the –judging bias Outcome circumstance. or event some surrounding reality the change away or go them to make sand the in one’shead putting biasOstrich – occur. might and plausible are they though even one’s experience, in or past the in occurred have that not events unknown the for plan bias – Normalcy decisions. prior making in helpful and/or was experience past some has one which with attributes or items on focus Familiarity bias – true. to be expects or believes one what with is consistent perception or belief, to determine whether the experience prior to some event or activity bias – Consistency outcomes. possible of range the within or is plausible whether something is credible, whether it bias – Believability thebelief; lemming phenomenon. ata arriving in to others to defer market; the of momentum the in up caught get bias –Bandwagon/herd a to tendency error. the for responsibility personal accept than rather expert the blame can consumer the is wrong, decision the If warranted. than others or experts of opinions the on importance more places aconsumer which in technique bias – Authority difference. amaterial may make that attributes or too narrowly, ignoring other elements atsomething Attention bias – looking ignoring the facts by facts the ignoring failure or inability to inability or failure this is a risk management management is arisk this this is the tendency to tendency is the this this relates some some relates this Cover story: “Done? You certainly have been!” this bias relates to relates bias this will close. will elsewhere those or wither gradually will it elsewhere, from spending capture cannot Friar’s Walk If too. centre the outside places and other each with competing many too are There this. demonstrates scheme finished the in places eating of number The exerciseshoppers consumer preference. that remembering Friar’s Walk to succeed, for to suffer has else somewhere retail words, other In tick. ascheme to make else somewhere from to come has and is finite power spending is that well) as authorities other bymany but Newport by (andjust not understood never was What aspirations. unrealistic on to focus wanted only who zealots regeneration and shades all of politicians of mentality ostrich the of because ahead went it but bycar. travels spending –big Newport) greater in those alone Causeway, let Cribb’s Cwmbran, (e.g. Cardiff, by shoppers preferred opportunities retail alternative and inconvenience problems, plus other congestion inherent Newport’s of because wayintosuccess its to compete position a in Friar’s is never that Walk was upshot However, the loan. £90million massive the of whole the have off to pay not do ratepayers the Taliskerthe Corporation, with partnership its in is because, Value” away“Best in and asuccess as disposal Friar’s Walk considers Council City Newport Value” The relative success of”Best or actions. actions. or activities various with associated risks the to recognize failing way; the along fell that losers the recognizing than rather winners, the on –focusing bias Survivorship facts. other ignoring belief, that to reinforce perception or belief aprior with consistent are (or that negatives) positives on focuses maker adecision which in technique is afiltering –this perception Selective regard. high in holds or affinity an has maker decision a whom with others of beliefs or actions Reference group bias – deferring to the them. embrace also will they believing to others attitudes or opinions beliefs, one’sown –extending bias Projection Don’t get me wrong, it looks good, good, looks it wrong, me get Don’t 17 VALUER SEPTEMBER 2017 Cover story: “Done? You certainly have been!”

days, the public interest is couched in Compulsory Purchase Association. He “Don’t get me wrong, terms of wellbeing, sustainability and worked on town centre retail and project community engagement, and planning managing CPOs over 40 years in Cwmbran, it looks good, but it framework protected by statute. Many Land Authority for Wales and the Welsh went ahead because of times, these terms only feature as glib Development Agency. the ostrich mentality statements, and Communities First outcomes is another example of that. Too of politicians of all often it is not market failure that causes shades and regeneration the ultimate urban problem but a too eager desire to intervene. As I have said in Footnotes: zealots who only wanted the very first article based on this scheme, to focus on unrealistic “Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well” 5 1 IRRV Valuer magazine – June 2011, June aspirations.” The people of Newport will have to be very 2012, September 2013, June 2014, June careful in the future watching the “light 2016. bulbs” in the council come up with other 2 Newport City Council (Redevelopment The people of Newport will now have aspirational ways of spending money! of John Frost Square) Compulsory the council’s budget cut to the tune of Purchase Order 2006. £500,000 per annum for the foreseeable Stan Edwards, a Caerleon based Chartered 3 R (on the application of ) Iceland future, just for the sake of some form of Surveyor, is a Director of Evocati Foods Ltd Claimant v Newport City “iconic” legacy. Also, the trouble is that we Consultancy specialising in CPO process Council - defendant Neutral Citation cannot blame any particular political party and is a past visiting lecturer in retail Number: [2010] EWHC 2502 (Admin) – they’ve all had their paws in producing planning and development at Cardiff Case No: CO/2654/2010 in the High something that always needed to be University. He is an External Examiner in Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division rescued. Whereas “accentuate the Real Estate /Surveying at the University Administrative Court at Cardiff. positive” is the mantra for most authorities College of Estate Management/University 4 James La Salle – Behavioural Real promoting CPOs, this tends to be opaque of Reading. He was formerly Vice-Chairman Estate. and not sustainable in approach. These and now an Honorary Member of the 5 King Lear.

IRRV Qualifications

IRRV Certificate Level 3

This course is designed for those who wish to gain a professional qualification and further their careers. Streams available: • Revenues and Welfare Benefits • Non-Domestic Rate • Valuation Tribunal

IRRV Professional Diploma IRRV Professional Qualification This course is designed for those who wish to progress to senior positions. The Professional Diploma leads to the highest level qualification, IRRV Honours. 3 places for the price of 2 on multiple enrolments* Fees for both IRRV London Day Release and IRRV Distance Learning • IRRV Certificate Level 3: £1240.00 plus VAT DISTANCE LEARNING: • Diploma: £1360.00 plus VAT E: [email protected] • Individual Subjects: on request T: 020 7691 8984 W: www.irrvdistancelearning.org.uk (Day release courses start in October 2017) LONDON DAY RELEASE E: [email protected] * This offer is valid on multiple bookings with a minimum of 3 candidates T: 020 7691 8974 and can be applied to bookings for day release and / or distance W: www.irrv.net/dayrelease learning.