We have had an email from Richard Killip who requested a copy of the ‘separate contractual agreement’. This is what he said:
‘The T&A article here http://bit.ly/wBlYgA refers to a contractual agreement which does not exist.
Tom Hustler is reported as saying: “We can therefore confirm that there is no separate contractual agreement between either Yorkshire Forward or HCA and Langtree Artisan or Langtree Group that “removes” insolvency clause from the Development Agreement.”
We have just had this email from a member of the campaign group who has spoken to a representative of the Homes and Communities Agency on the phone this afternoon.
‘When asked, “does the building pose any threat to any person in Bradford?”, the reply was categorically ”no”.
There is the potential risk of falling masonry IF the guttering and drains are blocked, but they are maintained and perfectly safe and will remain that way as the HCA are contractually obliged to maintain them, so there is no reason they would become blocked or a risk.
Work is going on on the roof to waterproof it so that water cannot damage the steel supports, which would in turn make the building potentially hazardous if not seen to. The building is thus actually becoming safer by the day.
When asked “is the building structurally unsound?” he replied that “no, no one is allowed in due to the presense of asbestos but the exterior structure is at no risk of collapse”.
When asked “is the building beyond repair?” he replied “It’s a case of the enomonic impact of the repair, pretty much anything can be restored or repaired, it’s a case of whether it is financially and economically viable to do so. There is little use for a big 30′s building with no windows”. He went out to say that there isn’t much use for a building without windows and that’s the core problem, not anything to do with its state. He doesn’t know when the last bat report was conducted.
Regarding the hole in the roof that the Telegraph and Argus ran as their front page picture as evidence of deterioration and damage, the man from the HCA confirmed that their construction workers made the hole in the roof to carry out inspections of the steel work, that this is standard practice, and the hole would be sealed once inspections had been completed.
He said it was in their interest to seal the roof to prevent water damage and pigeons getting in as it was their legal responsibility to do so (I guess all the pigeons are on holiday this week).
He said they are holding it until the sale is completed with Langtree Artisan so they can pass it onto the private sector and return the money to the public sector, that was their main concern, completing the sale so the contract can be completed.
I referenced the Wool Exchange building, a building with almost no windows, repurposed as a book shop with a glass front and he went “Errrrrrr, that building has a smaller footprint”.
He dodged questions like a master polititain but did confirm in no uncertain terms that the building is not physically beyond repair, and that the building poses absolutely NO THREAT to the people of Bradford (providing they don’t go running around naked inside).’
It was so easy to obtain this information that we can only conclude that the Telegraph and Argus had deliberately printed misleading information in an attempt to fool the public into accepting an unnecessary demolition. Here is the main reason they continue to do so.
We understand some of you have already complained to the Press Complaints Commission about the Telegraph and Argus’ inaccurate and misleading reporting on the story but if you haven’t and would like to add your complaint, you can do so here.