SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM FOR LATEST NEWS

March 7th 2003

Up to 200 workers will lose their jobs at a West Oxfordshire furniture factory. The announcement was made to staff at the Parker Knoll factory and showroom in Chipping Norton on March 6. The site will take the brunt of about 220 redundancies at the company. The firm, which dates from 1870, said manufacturing and sales jobs would be lost. Managers blamed falling sales and an "overly complex" manufacturing process. They said the site could be closed and production moved to another site. The showroom at the London Road factory will close, with viewings by invitation only.

March 12th

The loss of up to 200 jobs at a Chipping Norton furniture factory has been described as "depressing" by the area's MP. David Cameron has met Parker Knoll managers to discuss the redundancies. Witney MP Mr Cameron said: "It is very depressing news. They say they value and want to keep their local work force but the whole company is facing problems at their other sites at High Wycombe and London."

  March 18th

Parker Knoll, Chipping Norton's largest employer, is shedding 45 per cent of its workforce and may move out of the town altogether. The furniture and upholstery company, which was bought by Silentnight Holdings in November 2000, is to make about 200 people in Chipping Norton redundant. Chief executive Vincent Cruise, said: "During the past few years Parker Knoll has been unprofitable and has been supported by Silentnight Holdings." The showroom at the Chipping Norton site will no longer be open to the public and only available to customers on an occasional basis. A joint consultative committee will be formed to represent employees in the areas affected. The company will consider volunteers for redundancy but must maintain the correct blend of skills and experience in the ongoing business. Support services for redundant employees will be put in place. The future for remaining employees remains uncertain as the business may be forced to move to another site. Mr Cruise said: "It is likely trading losses will continue in the short term as management continuously review future options to restore long-term sustainable profitability. "These options may include the possibility of moving to an alternative site more suitable for the downsized business." Chipping Norton's Town Mayor Jo Graves said the news was a devastating blow, although not entirely unexpected. "I was quite devastated that it happened although probably the writing was on the wall," she said. "Mainly it is the feeling for the families who might have three or four members working at Parker Knoll and could face a devastating loss to their income. However we are trying not to be too downbeat about it and hope the management can come to the best of all compromises so it is not felt to keenly."
 

April 1st

With an estimated three quarters of the workforce living locally, many families will be affected. Support with job hunting and retraining will come from both the company and local agencies - including the County Council. A delegation of Councillors is to meet Mr Cruise though there is some feeling that this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted'  Chipping Norton remains a great place to live, work and visit. Mayor Jo Graves stressed that the town remains very much open for business. The plea already voiced in the Town Appraisal is for more local jobs, more services in the town centre, and much more affordable housing for local workers . The 13-acre Parker Knoll, site according to one local planning expert, could be opened up for a mix of new businesses and affordable housing - if West Oxfordshire planners worked with the town on a sensible 'windfall' plan - perhaps with more mixed development of a prosperous town centre. Now is a great time for businesses and the community to work together to promote Chipping Norton as a thriving, market town.

BBC News 15th April

What does a company do when its products are stuck in a timewarp? And not just any old timewarp, but the 1970s - the taste-free era of sideburns, kipper ties and the three day week. Silentnight, the company which makes Parker Knoll furniture, was last week forced to cut 800 jobs and close two factories after years of falling sales. The company blamed cheap foreign imports and under-investment. But the real problem, as chief executive Nino Allenza admitted, is that Parker Knoll's image is simply out of date. Its appeal is limited almost exclusively to the over 60s, who recall its 1970s heyday, when it was Britain's best known furniture brand. That it survives at all - in the era of Changing Rooms and Ikea - is, perhaps, a minor miracle.

Ananova 1st May

Silentnight has seen its shares drop another 6% after it revealed annual profits had halved amid flagging furniture sales. The company, based in Lancashire, is also warning shareholders not to presume a dividend will be paid in the new financial year.But despite recent ongoing problems, shareholders will get a total dividend payout of 8.5p this year, down on the 13.5p paid last year. A review of the business is being undertaken after operational difficulties and a decline in orders battered the group's loss-making furniture arm. The company confirms the previously announced closure of factories in Andover, Hampshire, as part of the overhaul of its furniture division, whose products include Parker Knoll. Upholstery factories at Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire and Edmonton, London which will also be closed and relocated locally, it added. Last month Silentnight indicated up to 800 workers could lose their jobs as part of the overhaul. In its statement, Silentnight said: "Full closure was considered but on balance it was concluded that the retention of the brand values exceeded the management effort and turnaround costs."

July 7th

Parker Knoll site sale ‘complex’

Plans to put a slimmed down Parker Knoll on a profitable footing – with a probable move out of Chipping Norton – are progressing, according to the 18 June ‘business plan update’ from Chief Executive Vincent Cruise. Simplification of the business, by getting out of contract and export business, means a drastic drop in the range of ‘frame types’ from over 400 to 66. On redundancies, 63 hourly paid workers are being released in June and July with the rest of the 120 planned later after production backlogs are dealt with. Redundancies in salaried staff are being notified this month.

On the rumoured site closure and move ‘detailed assessments of two sites (Banbury and Bicester) are being carried out’. Although Mr Cruise states that the existing Chipping Norton site ‘has not been sold to a builder or a supermarket’ it is clear the company aim to get as much money from a sale as possible. To quote Mr Cruise again ‘in order to move site it is essential that we agree planning permission for a change of use for the existing business site to maximise its value…This activity…is proving to be very complex due to the number of parties involved. This includes the County Council, District Council and Town Council. Mayor Graves and Councillor Grantham from Chipping Norton Town Council have met with Nino Allenza in mid-May to present a case for staying in Chipping Norton. Following that meeting management had anticipated receiving proposals from the Councils to back the case presented. It is now clear that no proposal will be forthcoming to meet our requirements’. At the June Town Council meeting Mayor Jo Graves said ‘every effort would be made to make sure that possible use of the site would be for the best benefit of the town.’ Much now will depend on the views of the WO District Planners who will probably need to develop special planning guidance for this ‘windfall’ site which is not in the current Local Plan for development.

JULY 16th

Link to : Just What is Happening at Parker Knoll?
An in-depth article from chippingnorton.net
 

Sept 13th

SILENTNIGHT GOES PRIVATE


Sept 13th. James Davy writes in the INDEPENDENT
"The embattled furniture and bedding group Silentnight was likely to become a private company again after the independent directors yesterday recommended a 155p-a-share offer from the company's founding family valuing the business at £72m. The chairman, Roger Pedder, said the offer from Soundersleep, a bid vehicle created by Silentnight's founders, the Clarke family, represented a "fair price" for the company. The group, which includes the Sealy and Parker Knoll brands, was formed in 1946 and floated on the stock exchange in 1973. The Clarke family retained a controlling 51 per cent stake in the business. But Silentnight, based in Lancashire, has been beset with problems over the past 18 months. Last September, its then chairman, Keith Ackroyd, and chief executive, Bill Simpson, were forced out by the Clarke family following the breakdown of a 190p-a-share offer from the family's investment vehicle, Famco Holdings.The beds and the furniture divisions have continued to struggle since then. The Soundersleep offer coincided with the announcement of a £6.5m pre-tax loss for the six months to 2 August and Mr Pedder said it would be three to five years before the company "got any results" from the major restructuring work that had been undertaken since his arrival in January. Mr Pedder said Silentnight "had never truly been a public company" and it was better to sort out "these problems in a private situation".

LOCAL PROGRESS REPORT (1)

At the Town Council Meeting on September 15th Cllr Grantham reported various bits of Parker Knoll news which are apparently not confidential. 1) The Planning Department at WODC are awaiting a planning proposal from Parker Knoll for their site but have not yet received one. 2) A new MD has been appointed at Parker Knoll 3) The company has run into more problems in attempting to outsource parts of its process from overseas than they had anticipated 4) Negotiations for a preferred new site in Banbury have fallen through........all of which suggests that operations in Chipping Norton will continue for a while yet.

LOCAL PROGRESS REPORT (2)

At a Breakfast Meeting with some Chippy business people on September 19th Andrew Tucker, Head of Planning at WODC, said that a Planning application was expected soon which would probably be for "mixed use" - ie industrial, residential and community-use. People should not conclude, when the application appeared, that it was necessarily supported by the District Council. Obviously the company was looking to get best  value for its Chippy site which it said it needed to do to help with its re-structuring costs. In order to achieve this the company would clearly be looking to maximise the residential element. They would likely be quoting in support - at the application stage and, if it came to it, on appeal - recent new Central Government Guidelines following the crisis over Housing Shortages in the South East. These guidelines recommend a more flexible approach by Planning Authorities to change of use from industrial to residential.  He emphasised that the District Council completely understood and supported the views expressed in the recent Appraisal that Chippy did not want to become a commuter town but wanted to stay a "working" town and retain a viable balance of housing, jobs and public services and amenities.

PARKER KNOLL APPLY FOR PLANNING PERMISSION - FOR A HOUSING ESTATE.

FROM THE  OXFORD MAIL  October 2nd

The future for hundreds of workers at Chipping Norton furniture maker Parker Knoll is shrouded in doubt with the company set to pull out of the town. The loss-making firm, one of the area's largest employers, has applied for planning permission to turn its 14-acre factory site into a housing estate with some light industry. Managers said they were seeking alternative sites which could be in Oxfordshire but there were no definite plans -- leaving 290 staff in limbo. Company secretary Cathy Baxendall said: "The application is part of our long-term plan to move to an alternative site. "All staff are fully aware of our plans to move away during the coming years." Earlier this year the company made 220 staff redundant and its London Road showroom was closed. The leader of West Oxfordshire District Council, Barry Norton, said: "We've encouraged Parker Knoll to look for alternative sites as near as possible to Chipping Norton so that the skilled workforce can stay in the area."  Parker Knoll spokesman Baba Hobart said: "We hope to find an alternative site in Oxfordshire and there are no further redundancy plans. "But we can't give an assurance we are going to remain." The company was established in the town in 1962.

---------------------------------------------------------

Remember that we were warned in advance by the WODC Head of Planning that we should not assume that any application had the backing of the District Council. There is obviously plenty of scope for discussion. The application for "outline" Planning permission boils down to the following plan (forgive the sketchiness but there is a daft rule that you can't photocopy maps and plans - this is an "artists impression"!)

The application is looking for agreement "in principle" to a mixed development. Its an ingenious scheme, extremely well and powerfully argued - every Local Plan and Policy Guidance ever issued is quoted in support. The hand of professional (and probably very expensive) consultants is clear throughout five bulky documents. There's something for everyone. Employment space for 380 new jobs. (A figure rationalised as compensating for 260 redundancies from Parker Knoll + providing one job for every new house in the development). The County Council can choose what it wants as a community facility (care home, youth centre...). Affordable homes for the District...but only 30% (because of the high cost of clearing the site and by the way the Local Plan is only a draft isn't it, with a strong hint of an appeal against the 50% level proposed - and nobody wants an appeal) The catch is in the density required in the Housing Development  to make all this work. 16 houses per acre. The Design Statement describes the style and character...Strong urban identity, distance between houses kept to the minimum, up to four stories, grouped around open spaces, strongly defined street frontages. This is all within Planning guidelines and is justified as being the modern interpretation of the architectural vernacular of a Cotswold town. But this site is a long way from the Town Centre and adjoins open country. Is this what we should be building on the edge of the town? Well that's exactly what the District itself have just proposed on its own land at Coopers Close (READ ABOUT THAT PLAN HERE) . The application also quotes  from Regional Planning Guidelines ...."Better use should be made of existing employment land resources and precedence should be given to the use of developed land over the use of new land." You certainly can't argue that this proposal does not make better use of developed land. The same number of jobs in a quarter of the space and 120 new homes. We need to be sure that this jobs figure is a real one. 380 jobs on 3 acres seems mightily ambitious. Those jobs still have to be created We're not talking call centres hopefully. What kind of businesses? What sort of employees will they be looking for? What rents will they pay? Can we attract them? (Wouldn't it be reasonable to ask Parker Knoll to carry out an employment assessment - alongside the design, transport, landscape and ecological assessments they have already done?) Given a positive response to these questions its difficult to see why Parker Knoll should not get their "outline" permission.  Mind you the new companies still have to be attracted to Chipping Norton. The sooner the town gets started on that "selling" job the better.

 

JOHN GRANTHAM COMES OUT FIGHTING  - JOBS ARE THE KEY PRIORITY IN THE PARKER KNOLL DEBATE

On Monday evening (20th October) the Town Council considered the planning application from Parker Knoll for a mixed development on their London Road site.  Councillor Grantham (pictured left) opened the discussion and was in his best combative form. He is an ex-Managing Director of Parker Knoll and knows more about all this than anyone. You sense that he feels a  betrayal of trust by the company of the enormous help they have had over the years from the Chippy Council. When they came to the town in 1961 it was the (then) Borough Council who persuaded the OCC to sell the company 8 acres of jealously-guarded smallholding land to get their operation started. More help followed with other acquisitions. John feels passionately that Parker Knoll are - as an absolute minimum- under a moral obligation to return at least those original 8 acres to a use which will benefit the town.  Cllrs Davison, Evans and Alcock all voiced strong views on the jobs issue and the Mayor was more a cheerleader than a referee. Everyone was fighting on the same side! The WODC Uplands Area Planning Manager Jeff Lowe attended the meeting to provide information and was the only impartial person present. His input was invaluable.

What follows is  not a minute (only Town Clerks do minutes!).......it is just one participant's  attempt to gather together some of the main points and arguments that were made.

The present application proposes a "Mixed use" development of the site : 3.5 acres  for employment -  enough for a "claimed" 380 jobs: 1.2 acres for Community use (like a Care Home or a Youth Centre) : and 7.4 acres for 120 new houses. The proposal  raises a number of crucial issues for Chippy. It represents a pivot point. Either the principle is accepted that present employment levels are preserved  and future housing development is matched by job provision so a balance is kept and Chippy remains a "working" town .....or the place takes an  inexorable step towards becoming a commuter dormitory..... because as John Grantham reminded us there are people waiting in the wings with options on even bigger tracts of land who are watching this application like hawks.  Parker Knoll are in financial problems and their interest is to make as much money as they can from their site....which means as much housing and as little industrial use as possible. The Town's interest is overwhelmingly concerned with jobs. Parker Knoll are planning to close their factory and take 200 skilled workers away with them to another site in the county..... but no site has actually yet been negotiated. There will be 260 redundancies. Parker Knoll have taken this redundancy figure and added 120 to it  - one for every new house they propose. Their plan claims to provide employment space for 380 jobs - so they reckon their proposal will have  a neutral effect on overall employment levels in Chippy. In effect they say that as many jobs (plus car parking) will be provided on 3.5 acres of land as are provided on the present 15 acres. This is just not credible.

Parker Knoll are only interested in calculating an acreage figure. How many acres are needed to "generate" 380 jobs? To do this they use some average density figures produced six years ago in a report called "Use of Business Space" which dealt with the whole South East Region (including London). These figures were intended for use by authorities trying to work out the land requirement for employment across very large areas - like whole counties- where averages might be relevant. To apply them to an individual site of a few acres is simply ridiculous. Other surveys show that in practice there are huge differences in densities achieved - depending on local factors. The averages make no allowance for the fact that a rural site like this might need to be at a much lower-density. The WODC say they have just managed to get a sight of this report and cannot yet determine whether it is relevant to the situation of a brownfield site overlooking open country on the edge of a small self-sufficient market town in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in a Conservation area. David Cameron recently suggested that these SE "brownfield site use" policies are aimed at large semi-derelict tracts of industrial land around the North Circular Road which the government is keen to get better utilised and have no relevance to rural towns like ours. Such densities  would obviously result in multi-storey, closely packed office-type structures (presumably with underground car parks)...whereas what everyone would like to see on this important site at the main entrance to the town would be small, well landscaped, single-storey light industrial units and workshops....which would probably need all 15 acres of the site.

Parker Knoll assume the development  will be 40% offices and 60% light industrial. Is this right? Cromwell Park (offices) is not full yet and Elmsfield Industrial (workshops) is bursting at the seams). They then  use the average space requirements for the whole South East.  If you included any kind of "workshops" or "warehousing" the land requirement would increase dramatically - since these need more space than the "general industrial" averages which have been used. The same is true if you reduced the percentage of office space. There is no allowance for car parking. 200 cars would need at least 1-2 acres.

The acreage required for jobs cannot be discussed sensibly until a proper assessment has been made of the skills which will be available in the town (which Parker Knoll would know most about), the re-training necessary, the market demand that exists for different kinds of industrial units and the rents which potential business tenants would pay, and the kinds of  businesses to whom such space could be marketed. The application has a series of site surveys as bulky appendices (Design, Transport, Landscape, Ecology) - but nothing to justify the Employment claims. The planners must demand this. It is so fundamental. Only after having determined the type of buildings and space needed for employment and after having sought some financial contribution from Parker Knoll towards the creation of a detailed Employment Strategy (including the effective marketing of the town)  should  housing development be considered.

The application comes up at the WODC Planning Committee in early November, but the current plan is that the committee will only decide then whether they need to make a site visit before considering the application. After that the actual decision will not be made until either the December meeting or (more probably) the January meeting. If the company don't get a decision on their application within two  months of its submission (which means by Nov 12th) they have a statutory right of appeal - which they may well take. Either way the company's timelines are getting extended which they will not like. The Town needs to state its concerns about the provision of jobs at every stage of this process - with as much force and evidence as possible. It is time to dig our heels in.

NOV 7th

Richard Dudding Director for Environment & Economy in Oxfordshire was shown around town by County Councillor Rob Evans on Friday. He took time out to have lunch at Chequers with a group of town representatives

The discussion covered the Parker Knoll situation. The discussion was really interesting but little that was new emerged. This is primarily a District matter and clearly an area where County officers tread warily. The pressure to develop industrial land comes from the very high prices in the residential property market. The only Planning way to counter this was to introduce onerous conditions which lowered the development value. 

A few things to note....Mr Dudding let slip that the County were in direct discussion with Parker Knoll but he couldn't talk about it. (Not to worry Richard. We are used to being kept in the dark about anything that matters). The Mayor said that she didn't think the Parker Knoll proposal was too bad - provided there was more allocation of land for jobs (which came as a bit of a surprise to several Town Councillors who thought the council were protesting against any change of use). But things move on and Turney's are now applying to develop their industrial site at Station Yard for housing. The battle is truly joined.

One really interesting idea was proposed. That a "themed" industrial and retail park should be developed around the existing showroom based on the furniture and textile history of the town, and building on the success of a number of custom-built furniture companies in and around the town. Street had faced a similar situation when its shoe factory had closed and they had pursued a similar strategy. Such a development would draw on the existing skills base in the town - including those made redundant. It would provide a focus for re-training. Chipping Norton was geographically well-placed to attract city dwellers out into the country to select their hand-built kitchen. Craftsmanship quality was of growing attractiveness to a significant proportion of the population. But some people thought that furniture was part of our history - along with Tweed, Iron Foundries and Brewing. They would much prefer a technology focus, which seemed to be more in keeping with young people's aspirations.

However, it was generally acknowledged that none of this kind of thinking would even reach the drawing board unless the District took a firm line on change of use. If they did, the proposal would go to appeal. With the new SE Regional emphasis on brownfield sites being used for housing, there was no certainty the Ditsrict would win. It might be better to try and do a deal and avoid an appeals process. And so the argument goes round.

NOV 17th

THE DEBATE GOES ON.......

The Planning proposal for the Parker Knoll Development quotes National and SE Regional Planning Strategies at various points to justify its proposals for what is a very intensive housing development on an industrial site. In particular they argue that Brownfield sites should take precedence over the use of Greenfield land - like the OCC land on the opposite side of London Road which is already scheduled in the Local Plan for housing development. There seem to be three bulky Strategy documents relevant to this issue. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published "Towards a Brownfield Strategy" and "Sustainable Communities in the South East". The Regional Government published back in 2001 "A Sustainable Development Framework". All of them identify the use of Previously Developed Land as the preferred way of meeting housing need..........but they are talking about the release of MOD and other publicly-owned land plus the many derelict sites which developers have spurned because they are "difficult" and less profitable. In none of these papers is there any suggestion that beneficially utilised industrial land should be used for housing.

The following quotes from "Sustainable Communities in the South East"  illustrate the point that anyone can play this select-a-bit of a strategy game. One of the key objectives is.....to make better use of land. Despite being one of the most densely populated regions, land is used inefficiently  However at the same time we need to:....protect the diverse nature and character of the South East and high quality of its countryside, requiring tailored solutions for different parts of the region. These need to recognise that nearly a quarter of all businesses are based in rural areas......There are particular challenges in rural areas, where there is greater isolation, poor access to services and employment...........To support sustainable rural development, especially within the five Local Action Group areas supported by the European Community Initiative Leader+ programme (like West Oxfordshire). .......develop Market Towns as service centres to the rural hinterland and re-use brownfield sites for business uses......To reduce road traffic and congestion through reducing the need to travel by car

There is plenty of ammunition in these documents to give the District Council some good strategy-based arguments for not allowing a change of use. The Parker Knoll site should be kept for jobs. The town needs them. (In our poll 80 people have voted so far - the highest on any topic yet. Only four of them think the planning application should be approved.)

DEC 2003

Some people are losing track - not surprisingly. Parker Knoll submitted a Planning Application to build on their site several months ago - a mix of housing, community facilities and a ludicrously small allocation of land for employment purposes. They didn't get a fast enough answer so they appealed. This means the decision on that application was taken out of the District's hands.  In a well-established ploy by developers they then submitted a second identical application to the WODC. This is like saying "OK we'll negotiate with you on this second application but the original one is still there moving along an Appeal track. We'll see which horse we back when we know where we get to with you". Everyone expects the second application to be rejected at a District Planning Meeting - probably in February. That is when the real talking will begin. Its getting urgent that the town makes its own constructive views known to feed into that discussion process. A group of business people in the town have become increasingly concerned that the town has not been saying clearly enough just what it wants to see happen. They have been getting some serious professional advice. The group have discussed their ideas with a number of council officers and consulted with local politicians. They have put their proposal into a draft letter to the WODC and hope to get the backing of the Town Council next Monday.   READ THE LETTER IN FULL

UPDATE: The Town Council decided on Monday by a margin of one vote that it couldn't endorse the letter. The majority felt that the town should stay with its stated position of insisting that the whole of the present Parker Knoll site should be preserved for employment, and that any variation to this position would send out mixed signals. They also believed that efforts to persuade Parker Knoll to stay should continue and the company should be given no encouragement to think they may be about to get residential planning permission for even part of the site. They felt there were parts of the letter which they could support but nobody said what they were. The minority group felt that events had now moved on. The Oxford County Council had already accepted the principle of mixed use for the site and the District Planners were beginning to address the issue of what type of new employment provision would be required - as well as the acreage. Both parties feel that the site should not be considered in isolation. The letter attempted to express what was best for the town in the event that Parker Knoll do leave and a plan is needed which covers both sites (ie Parker Knoll and the County- owned site directly opposite which has been scheduled for housing in the Local Plan). The minority group were worried that if the town did not stake out its long-term vision now, they might miss the chance to do so altogether - since events would probably start moving quickly soon.

Its more a disagreement on tactics than principle. Both groups are concerned above all about  how to keep 400 jobs in the town. The experienced majority have won the argument so they must now play their hand. We all wish them luck. A revised letter will still be sent but from individuals rather than with the formal support of any organisation.

The majority who opposed endorsing the letter were: Councillors Graves, Grantham, Coles, Burrows, Evans and Jarrett. The minority voting to endorse the letter were Councillors Hannant, Alcock, Galbraith, Wills-Wright and Qadir. Councillors Stephenson and Simmons abstained. Councillors Davidson and Wilkes were absent. Councillor Beacham had withdrawn from the discussion and vote- having declared an interest.

 2004

PLANNING COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY REJECT PARKER KNOLL APPLICATION

Parker Knoll's application for a mixed use development on their London Road site has already gone to Appeal (scheduled for June 22) The power to determine this proposal now rests with the Planning Inspectorate. On Jan 5th the Upland Planning Committee of the Council had to decide what it would have done had it been able to determine this application. Their decision and the reasons for it will now form the basis of the Council’s case at the public inquiry. The Committee unanimously endorsed the conclusion of the Planning Officer's Report which was to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1 That the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of employment land and undermine the Council’s policies to protect the supply of useful employment sites and thereby enhance Chipping Norton as a sustainable local centre.
2 The proposal does not make adequate provision for supporting infrastructure. Furthermore the proposal makes insufficient and unsatisfactory provision to deliver housing to meet identified local housing needs.

A duplicate application has now been submitted to the District Council. Parker Knoll have clearly indicated that this has been submitted for the purpose of negotiation and to hopefully overcome the need for a public inquiry. This is where the horse trading really begins.

READ THE FULL REPORT      READ MORE BACKGROUND