At the end of that article it says the DDDA never received any government funding. Whilst this is true, it has received the proceeds of the sale of what are esentially state assets in the form of land. It also acquired a stock of social and affordable housing, which it no doubt received some remuneration for when selling (the affordable elements at least). Not only this though, but they are a public body and the planning authority for the area, and in the case of the glass bottle site, they reinvested money's which were gathered through the sale of state property etc, in a partnership on the glass bottle site. This is a clear conflict, and should be outside their remit and ability. Its like allowing a developer to by a planning authority and basically build what he likes. It completely blurs the lines between private commerce and governance/regulation.