36


Interview: John Burton


Director of development Westfield


As a result of the Chelsfield takeover we had acquired 25 per cent of the rights to undertake the Stratford City development. Following Chelsfield’s demise, my role was to lead – from a Westfield


point of view – in negotiations with the government and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to undertake development so we could enable the Olympic Games to be staged on some of the land required. At the same time, the team was involved in the whole planning process right through to the delivery, to today. Back in 2004, London was not seen as a strong contender for the Olympics, but there was a view around February 2005 that the chances were increasing. We had discussions with the ODA about its plans and what it might need from us to successfully stage the Games. In July 2005, the win was announced. It became critical for the government and ODA to ensure various rights of access, that the site designated as residential could be used for the Olympic Village and that a lot of associated infrastructure facility works could be coordinated between the two. So between July and September 2005 there was a very intense period of negotiation with the government on how to facilitate that. In the end we created a mountain of documents that ratified each other’s rights and obligations. The risks for all parties were huge in terms


of physical and financial issues. We also had to apply for planning permission for the scheme itself, for what was going to become the largest urban, retail and leisure scheme in Europe. Time was


short. Needless to say, trying to balance the objectives was quite difficult. The scale of this development was huge and the council did not have a lot of experience with major developments – it was very healthy that it recognised that. This meant when issues were taken to the council, it had the benefit of the Design Review Panels (DRP). It was up to the council whether to accept advice from the DRP, and in 99 per cent of cases it did so. In the early days, there were some large masterplanning issues to overcome – having a panel of very respected designers and architects who have very different backgrounds means achieving unanimous outcome is risky, but we worked through those issues successfully and the relationship became much more productive. They gave advice in terms of materials, using their experience to suggest more appropriate and cost-effective ways to both design and build the finished product. Those early days were a nervous time, however, as there was a risk that our intentions would be overruled by the panels. But they weren’t. Everyone involved was very productive and the relationship proved satisfying. It has had its moments, but there was a huge deal of mutual respect for what we both had to do. Typically, major projects have a review session with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment maybe once or twice in their lifecycle but, the fact was, we knew it would not be a one-off visit so we had the opportunity to review things fairly quickly and repeatedly. There wasn't just a one-off review, but the benefit of many during the design. This was about sharing experiences and learning how to get a better outcome.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142