Precinct to be knocked down as part of 20m plan
Proposals to demolish a shopping precinct and build new homes and business facilties, as part of a £20m town centre redevelopment plan, have been approved.
Evolve Estates applied for permission to pull down West Precinct, the Kingsway West multi-storey car park and buildings on Queensway in Billingham, to make way for new development.
The redeveloped area will eventually include 160 new homes, new commercial space, as well as improved urban infrastructure and dedicated public spaces.
In its planning statement, Evolve said the demolition of "largely vacant, tired and dated buildings" would pave the way for a "more attractive, modern and fit-for-purpose" town centre in Billingham.
Stockton Council planning committee was told the application was the first phase of a masterplan, drawn up after the authority received £20m in Levelling Up funding from the government in November 2023.
The funding was subsequently confirmed by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in the Autumn budget in 2024
The proposed new development also includes a ground-floor car park with 182 spaces, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
The Li Wah Chinese restaurant, Astronaut pub and Billingham Boxing Club are set to be moved under the proposals.
Speaking at the planning meeting, Labour councillor Norma Stephenson said: "The residents of Billingham have waited long enough for this - let's get on with it."
Fellow Labour councillor Barry Woodhouse concurred: "Let's get it agreed and get the bulldozers in."
But Conservative councillor Lynn Hall called the plans "a bit hotch-potch".
"The detail is so lacking, I feel. We're just giving a carte blanche to get on with it, and I'm not convinced the consultation has been as solid as it, perhaps, should have been."
The committee voted to approve the plans with conditions.
The next phase is expected to focus on the 160 new homes, with a planning application to follow later this year.
Follow BBC Tees on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
'Ambitious' town centre plan signed off
Decision on precinct's future as part of £20m plan
Boxing club set to lose home in demolition plans
Stockton Borough Council
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No More Student Visas? No Problem.
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Just how mad is Beijing about President Donald Trump's decision to revoke student visas for Chinese nationals? Not as mad as it says, and not as mad as one might expect. Publicly, China's leadership will likely complain that Trump's action is yet another attempt to thwart the country's rise. But in reality, Beijing would probably just as soon keep its smartest kids at home. Late last month, the U.S. State Department announced that it would 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,' and that it would 'enhance scrutiny' of the applications it received in the future. The new visa policy, a spokesperson said, is meant to prevent China from exploiting American universities and stealing intellectual property. A spokesperson for the foreign ministry quickly registered Beijing's objection to the new policy. But when Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke with Trump by phone last week, either he didn't raise the new visa policy or his foreign ministry didn't regard his comments on the matter worth including in its official summary of the call, which suggests that the issue is not a top priority in Beijing's negotiations with Washington. One reason for this underwhelming response may be that re-shoring its university students serves Beijing's current agenda. China first opened to the world in the 1980s; in the decades that followed, securing a Western education for its elite helped the country bring in the technology and skills it needed to escape poverty. China was 'sending people out, learning from other places, finding the best quality wherever it was, and bringing that quality back to China,' Robin Lewis, a consultant for U.S.-China education programs and a former associate dean at Columbia University, told me. Now that period has given way to one of nationalism and self-reliance, which means promoting China's own companies, products, technologies—and universities. [Rose Horowitch: Trump's campaign to scare off foreign students] Xi has consistently stressed the importance of education in sustaining China's rise. His government has invested heavily in China's schools and lavished resources on science and technology programs, with some success. Some of China's top institutions, such as Tsinghua University in Beijing, have gained international recognition as serious competitors in scientific research. China would like to have its own Harvards, rather than sending its elite students to the United States, for political and cultural reasons as well as economic ones. Chinese authorities have long worried that the hundreds of thousands of students it exports to America will absorb undesirable ideas about democracy and civil liberties—and that they will access information about China that is suppressed at home, such as the story of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. In fact, many young Chinese who study in the United States seem to enjoy American freedoms and seek to stay rather than return to serve the motherland. Beijing has tried to deal with this in part by monitoring the activities of its students in the U.S. and attempting to hold them firmly to the party line, including by harassing the families back home of those who stray. Within China, authorities can more easily confine students inside the government's propaganda bubble, which in recent years has become more airtight. Domestic media seek to portray the U.S. as unsafe, especially for Asians, by highlighting incidents of racial discrimination, violence, and disorder. One story published last year by the state news agency Xinhua, under the headline 'Chinese Students' Dreams Turned Into Nightmares at U.S. Doorstep,' tells the harrowing tale of a Chinese student detained and deported at an airport and claims that others had suffered the same fate. China's top spy agency, the Ministry of State Security, warned Chinese students at universities abroad against being recruited as foreign agents, and told of one such unfortunate national who was discovered and punished. Even before Trump's announcement, this climate of mutual distrust had led to a drop-off in Chinese students enrolled in American universities. The number had reached an all-time high during the 2019–20 academic year, topping 372,000, according to the Institute of International Education. But that figure has fallen since—by a quarter, to 277,000, in the 2023–24 academic year. Now India, with more than 331,000 enrolled, sends more students to American institutions than China does. The Trump administration appears to believe that curtailing Chinese access to American technology, money, and, in this case, education will give the U.S. the edge over its closest competitor. In some areas, this might work: Restricting the export of advanced U.S. semiconductor technology to China seems to have helped hold Beijing's chip industry back. So why not do the same with higher education? A case can be made that keeping Chinese students out of some of the world's top research institutions will hold back their skills acquisition and, with it, the country's progress. [Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down] In practice, though, the effect of this policy could be hard to gauge. The engineers behind the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which wowed Silicon Valley by developing a competitive chatbot on the cheap, were mainly locally trained. And the skills that Chinese students can't find at home they can seek in any number of places. There may be only so many Harvards, but Chinese students can receive a good education—and a warmer reception—in countries other than the United States. Universities in Japan and Hong Kong are already trying to capitalize on Trump's harassment of international students to lure them. The idea that any American policy can effectively dampen Chinese ambition may be far-fetched. 'People wake up in the morning and it's all about education here. There is nothing more important,' James McGregor, the chair for China at the consulting firm APCO, told me. 'You're going to stop Chinese people from learning the top skills in the world? No. They'll just deploy them somewhere else.' For now, the Trump team can't seem to decide whether it wants to get tough on China or make deals with China, and the new student-visa policy reflects this confusion. 'Chinese students are coming. No problem,' Trump said in a briefing after his call with Xi. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly.' China's leadership surely knows that many Chinese families still aspire to send their young-adult children to American universities. But Beijing is much more single-minded than Washington about the future of relations between the two countries: Xi appears to see Washington as the primary impediment to China's rise, and ties to the U.S. as a vulnerability best eliminated. From that viewpoint, relying on Harvard to train China's most promising students is a national-security risk. That means that Trump may be doing Xi a favor. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tim Walz lets loose in rant-filled talk with liberal think tank
Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz has built a reputation for his off-the-cuff comments. The Democratic Minnesota governor made no exception during a Center for American Progress (CAP) event on Friday morning called, "What's Next: Conversations on the Path Forward." Walz said China might be the voice of "moral authority" following Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders. "Now, who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some type of agreement in this? Who holds the moral authority? Who holds the ability to do that? Because we are not seen as a neutral actor, and we maybe never were," Walz said of the U.S.' role in de-escalating tensions in the Middle East. Tim Walz Hopes It Rains On Trump's Military Parade: 'I'm Just Going To Confess' According to Walz, the U.S. once attempted "to be somewhat of the arbitrator" in those negotiations during the Iran Nuclear Deal, but he said Americans must face the reality that the "neutral actor" with the "moral authority" to lead negotiations in the Middle East "might be the Chinese." Read On The Fox News App Tim Walz Floats China As 'Neutral Actor' With 'Moral Authority' To Negotiate Middle East Peace Walz didn't elaborate on why China would be that world leader. The Minnesota Democrat also admitted he is hoping for rain during President Donald Trump's military parade. "I have never so hoped for rain in my life," Walz said. Trump is hosting a massive Flag Day military parade on Saturday to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are expected to gather in the nation's capital to witness the historic parade, which also coincides with the president's 79th birthday. "This is not Pyongyang on a Saturday," Walz said, referring to the capital of North Korea, which is a communist, totalitarian dictatorship. Walz has joined many Democrats, including those planning to protest on Saturday, in criticizing Trump's military parade by drawing comparisons to China and North Korea's military parades. Trump's military parade on Saturday comes amid escalated conflict in the Middle East, after Israel launched air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders, and Iran responded by launching missiles toward Israeli territory. Walz was ridiculed earlier this year for celebrating Tesla's stock drop as protests raged on, rejecting Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). "On the iPhone, they've got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day — $225 and dropping," Walz said at the time. Walz on Friday said that speaking out against Musk and Tesla "worked" because it started to hurt the billionaire personally. The Democrat, who rose to the national stage as former Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate during her brief 2024 presidential campaign, criticized Trump along his usual attack lines on Friday. Walz said Trump is "incompetent at governing," and America is in a "dangerous time" under Trump's leadership, which he said is "marching towards authoritarianism" following the chaotic incident in which authorities forcibly removed Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., at a Department of Homeland Security press conference on Thursday. The former vice presidential candidate also said he was successful in labeling Trump "weird" during the 2024 presidential campaign. "I thought instead of making him a scary authoritarian wannabe who is incredibly dangerous, which I believe he is, I just thought, what a weird dude doing some of this stuff," Walz said. Walz added he "got a bunch of heat" for "inciting violence because I said we should bully the c--- out of Donald Trump." Earlier this year, the Minnesota governor said Harris chose him as her running mate, in part, because, "I could code talk to White guys watching football, fixing their truck" and "put them at ease," describing himself as the "permission structure" for White men from rural America to vote for Democrats. "I think I'll give you pretty good stuff, but I'll also give you 10% problematic," he added. Walz laughed off criticism over inconsistencies in his background on the 2024 campaign trail, describing himself as a "knucklehead."Original article source: Tim Walz lets loose in rant-filled talk with liberal think tank
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour's insane economic policies are taking us back to the dark 1970s
We have been here before. The crisis that the country faces may be catastrophic but it is not unprecedented. Anyone old enough to remember life in 1970s Britain will recall an almost universal sense of utter hopelessness and resignation. Most people (but not all, as it turned out) seemed to be beyond any thought of constructive rebellion against apparently invincible forces. Decline was not just an alarming possibility: it was inevitable and crushing in its finality. The everyday business of life was not simply encumbered by incompetence and infuriatingly poor services as it is now. It was made virtually impossible: the lights were going out on a regular basis along with facilities like heating and cooking, which relied on electricity; the train service on which commuters depended (no working from home back then) was repeatedly withdrawn sometimes without warning; and essential supplies were obstructed, which caused desperate shortages of goods. It was often observed, with characteristic British irony, that it was like living through the war – only this time the enemy wasn't foreign. You know what happened next. The Thatcher Government broke the death grip of trade union power which had crippled the British economy, not just by new legislation that directly limited the unions' coercive practices but by dismantling the nationalised industries over which they had a monopolistic hold. Along with union hegemony, the suffocating grip of Left-wing councils was also brought down. I recall this particularly vividly because my family's life in the London Borough of Haringey had been turned into a class war nightmare by a vindictive Labour council whose rising star Jeremy Corbyn obligingly closed down the schools in solidarity with the striking caretakers. But the miraculous revolution did not happen overnight. The first attempt to beat the coal miners who were critical to this struggle failed because the deprivation that their prolonged strike caused was too great for the population to bear. It took the Government a year of stockpiling coal in a carefully planned strategy to survive another winter of strikes before the breakthrough came. There was no instant revelation on the political front either. The presentation of what soon became known as Thatcherism, with its transformational view of how wealth was created and distributed ('growing the pie' as opposed to simply dividing up the existing one into more equal pieces), was a major philosophical undertaking. This was no mere electoral strategy. It was a historic shift of paradigmatic social thinking: a systematic argument with the Marxist analysis that had dominated political discourse in its harder or softer forms for a century. It took philosophical thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Nobel Prize-winning economic theorists like Milton Friedman, translated into practical action by an inspirational political adviser like Sir Keith Joseph, to create solutions that no one could have foreseen a generation before. Yes children, that was how it happened all those years ago that Britain emerged from what looked like an inevitable descent into domestic failure and global insignificance. But how can this be relevant now? After all, we have learnt the essential lessons about how to create economic growth and encourage the spread of it through society – haven't we? We know that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish if actual wealth is to increase, and that the state can only spend real money that markets produce if it is not to bankrupt the nation with debt. And, what is more, if the state inhibits or depresses the ability of private entrepreneurialism to flourish, there will be no possibility of it improving living conditions for anyone. Surely we know all this – don't we? The awareness of it must be embedded in the consciousness of every serious politician who aspires to power. (The unserious ones who are so ideologically purblind that they will not accept it are, I genuinely believe, unlikely ever to be more than a disruptive nuisance.) Blairite Labour had to demonstrate that it had been converted to the new truth before it could hope to be re-elected. It staged a ceremonial renunciation of the old dogma with the removal of its commitment to state ownership of the means of production and declared itself enthusiastically committed to capitalist free markets – so long as they were accompanied by 'social fairness' (which was, unfortunately, redistribution by another name). After all that, here we are. A new Old Labour Government is now restoring the suffocating employment rights which make the dynamism and flexibility of entrepreneurial business impossibly difficult. It promises enormous amounts of money that don't exist and cannot be produced, because of the restrictions it has put on private enterprise, to public services like the NHS designed on the old monopolistic model. It caves in, without a struggle, to the demands of every public sector union for all the world as if the 1980s had never happened. What is at the heart of this? To understand such retrograde thinking, you must listen to the rhetoric in which it is expressed. The Prime Minister and his hapless Chancellor speak of 'working people' as a homogeneous class whose communities are as conformist and predictable in their attitudes and loyalties as they were 50 years or more ago. Their lives are seen as inextricably bound up (and limited by) a single local industry which must be renewed or replaced by another industry or by a technological revolution into which the population can be inducted. There appears to be no understanding that what used to be a solid, passive working class which wanted nothing more than safe jobs for itself and its progeny was awakened by the 1980s to the possibility of social mobility. The working people to whom Labour is offering its expensive beneficence may now quite possibly be inclined to start up their own ventures and move on. Pouring government money into regional capital projects will mean taxing their new enterprises into the grave. The revelation of the Blair years was that there were lots of working (class) people who did not welcome the traditional, patronising Labour message. They may still be a minority, these brave individualists, but they are the future and they will not be ignored. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
