HML Mark 2?

HML Mark 2 ?

Paakwa hears that a nice large field (see HERE for map) opposite the Greenfield site which Craven district council (CDC) gave permission to HML for offices/car parks/council offices of around 1100 people is up for sale.

The people interested in buying this field are JN Bentley, a construction company based at Snaygill industrial estate.

Paakwa has nothing to say about Bentleys, either good or bad, but Paakwa certainly has some thoughts about the purchase of this field.

CDC have produced a report which will be read by the Policy Committee on Wednesday 19^th December. In brief this report states that members are recommended to dispose of this land to Bentleys subject to the council achieving at least market value for the land, and as council policy is nearly always to follow the advice of officers (yet again this report is by Jonathan Kerr of Renaissance fame) it can be reckoned that members will indeed vote to dispose of our land to Bentleys.

And this is good, surely?

We shall keep another large employer happy and within Skipton area, thereby keeping our council tax down (no laughter here please) won’t we?

But…

But.

The council are charged with looking after taxpayers' assets, and this land is most certainly that, an asset. To ensure that the maximum is realised for our assets there are certain rules which the council normally follow, and if a piece of land of ours is up for sale, as this one appears to be, then we should get the best price we can for it. Normally the land would go for sale by tender or by auction so that it can be readily and openly seen that we have got the best price, but not in this case.

In this case a price has been offered to the council from Bentleys, a price set by a consultant employed by them, and that sum is on a document withheld from the public. Similarly a valuation set by another valuer, one employed by the council, is again on that same document, the one withheld from the public.

That valuer employed by Craven district council is Jones Lang LaSalle, about whom Wikipedia has this to say:

Jones Lang LaSalle (NYSE: JLL) is a major real estate and money management services firm headquartered in the Aon Center in Chicago, Illinois."

Their nearest office to Skipton is Leeds, and their main service is testing viability of purchases for developers.

It is to be wondered at just why these sums should be secret. Just as Bentleys want this land, there may well be other companies, equally deserving ones, who would like the chance to purchase it, and are not being given that chance - Why not? What has CDC got against other Craven companies?

CDC have this to say:

Any application to purchase land is exempt from the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. The rules do not apply to sales or purchases of land (paragraph 2.2. (b). ).

There are provisions which relate to access to and the disclosure of information. Frequently local authorities will enter into negotiations concerning the provision of services and until a decision is made those negotiations are commercially sensitive.

Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 list categories where access to information may be treated as exempt and paragraph 3 applies to ‘the financial or business affairs of any person.’ Financial or business affairs’ includes contemplated as well as past or current activities.

Any report which contains details of negotiations between the Council and an external person or body may, where it is considered appropriate to do so, exempt information in accordance with this paragraph.

Bentleys themselves have put in a supporting statement, and this is the final paragraph:

"We are a Skipton company, and have a deep desire to remain so, but if a suitable site in Skipton does not become available very soon we will have little option but to seek alternative arrangements outside of the district"

Those conversant with the HML application to build on a protected greenfield site on Gargrave Road may remember that very similar wording was used in their application, and how that application was successful.

And so Paakwa worries, worries that it sometimes appears that big business runs Skipton, not councilors, and worries even more that a council which publicly declares itself to be ‘Open and Transparent’ sees the need to hide the valuation of this land, hiding behind the 'sensitive information' clause.

Without open tendering or bidding how can we be sure that Craven tax payers are indeed getting the best price for this land? The price paid for the land will not be revealed until after it has been sold, and possibly not even then, we await confirmation on that point.

Even so, it is hard to see why the land could not be sold at tender, as we would then be assured of the best price for our asset, whilst the tender would not be public. Perhaps all will become clear if, or when, the sale is concluded.

One council officer is the person recommending this scheme, the same officer who recommended carpeting Skipton with blocks of flats and multi storey car parks, and the same officer who goes by the title of Director of Community Services.
The officer deciding that this information is sensitive, and should be kept secret, appears to be that same officer.

It's hard not to feel sometimes that 'Big Business' could be substituted for the word 'Community,' and 'Secrecy' for 'Transparency.'