BOLTON Council’s Town Centre Development Newsletter states that the Council’s 2007 vision will be a key element of the design brief for a £40m development comprising c750 units to replace the University’s outdated, edge of town Halls of Residence.

That Village is scheduled to open to the first students in September 2018.

As usual, in Bolton there are more questions than answers. Has the design brief not yet been put together? Will there be time for any consultation here? Will it be like that for the Town Hall – a revelation of what was already set to go, with no expectation of the outrage that it would cause?

Is the leadership of Bolton Council pursuing a joined-up concept for Bolton town centre? If so, presumably it is one which encompasses the inexplicable fate of the charity canopy, the colouring of the Newport Street frontages and the play area in Octagon Square as well as the Cheadle Square conundrum. It would be nice, and a first, if the council taxpayers were let in on the secret vision at a formative stage.

Or maybe we are proceeding rudderless, with unconnected, ad hoc schemes being put forward. Which is it?

Is there a pattern in the demolition of the last few years? Clarence Street School and the Art Deco cinema are prime examples. And now, partial demolition is envisaged for the facade of our Grade II* Town Hall. This has met with overwhelming disapproval, in volumes of letters both to the Bolton News and in the file of objection letters to the planning department.

Both sets of letters show significant dismay with ‘the vision’ for Bolton Town Hall and its Conservation Area. The opinions expressed are both heartfelt and well-argued.

Bolton Council seeks to justify the assault on the frontage of the Town Hall by an ‘absolute necessity’ to do this BEFORE any commercial entity will consider even bidding to use the units to be created. The cost to the council of this scheme is likely to run to seven figures.

Given that these costs will be shouldered by Boltonians, surely democratic accountability demands transparency. But here is yet another unanswered question.

When, via a Freedom of Information request, the Council was invited to disclose the justification, it claimed exemption because, ‘This activity is conducted in a competitive environment’. The Council hypothesised that, ‘a competitor could use the study and detail to action a launch of a competing business into this competitive marketplace quicker and so gaining [sic] a commercial foothold’.

If so, there is no need to ENTICE commercial entities; surely they will all be busy fighting one another to gain the commercial advantage that follows from spending £1M in knocking holes in our Town Hall.

(Dr) M M F Collier

Lostock