The true meaning of Christmas

Well, Christmas time is almost upon us, and Paakwa will be taking a few days' holiday.
Not as long as Craven district council will of course, but then Paakwa doesn't have access to unlimited funds.
In the true spirit of Christmas, namely crass commercialism mingled with sprouts, Paakwa has had to take on advertising to make ends meet. Of course only the very highest quality of advertisers will suffice, so your approval is certain to be granted.

Just before the video Paakwa extends grateful thanks to all those councillors and council workers whose overriding aim is, and has been, to serve the public. We know who you are, but will neither embarrass you by stating your names nor cause you grief from others. We do, however, send you our heartfelt best wishes.
To those whose main aim in life is self service, and again we know who you are, and often DO name you, then we extend to you simply our wishes.
As Dickens showed us, even Scrooge could have a change of heart, and maybe this time of year will change the heart of some at Craven, and make them determined to live up to their promise of being

'Open, transparent, and accountable.'

We should also remember the words said to us by Christ - and Paakwa tends to agree with him -
"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

And now the bit you've been waiting for, Paakwa goes commercial!

(To start the video playing, click the little arrow at the bottom left hand side.)

January sales, Craven council style.

Here's a little quiz for you.

What's the going price for a few acres of land on Gargrave Road? Land opposite Aireville Grange and adjacent to the auction mart? (Map HERE)

Answer later, so no cheating!

Last night's meeting went exactly as predicted, Craven district council's (CDC's) policy committee met and nodded through the offer made by Bentleys for the field on Gargrave Road. The discussions between Bentleys and the council have taken some 18 months, but councillors were given a few short days to absorb the information and vote on it. Indeed a motion to wait a short while and see what other offers might be made was rejected!
The votes were recorded, and are noted at the end of this article. If you feel that you have something to say on this point, perhaps you should contact your local councillor.

The committee is chaired by Carl Lis, and contains such as Paul English and David Crawford.
The plan to sell the land to Bentleys was recommended by Jonathan Kerr, and keen eyes may well notice the similarity between those names and the ones who pushed for carpeting Skipton with high rise flats and car parks.


The council is charged with getting value for money when it sells our assets, our land, but they don't have to use auctions or tenders, instead they get valuations from independent valuers, to use as a measure - for some reason Craven district council, presumably ordered by Kerr, used a huge American company, Jones Lang LaSalle based in Illinois.
Perhaps because the council don't know of any competent valuers in Craven?
Whilst Jones Lang LaSalle do have offices in England, their main business seems to be in valuing land etc. for developers, as to whether it could be a viable purchase.
Perhaps a strange choice for land vendors!

Here's a clue to the price offered, and now accepted.
The council were told by Bentleys that if they didn't let them have this land then they, Bentleys, would move away from Skipton. CDC have a track record of giving in to big business, see HERE for details of the HML affair, so maybe Bentleys thought they were on to a sure thing.
Interestingly, Dacre son and Hartley apparently came up with an offer which was brushed aside. But then how could Dacre son and Hartley be expected to know as much about land values in Skipton as Jones Lang LaSalle of Illinois?

And so to the price.
Paakwa is informed that Bentleys is to pay no less than...

£340,000

Around the same price as was paid for just one inner terrace opposite this site two years ago (details HERE) although the field Bentleys want would hold at least 24 times as many houses as that.
One of the two councillors whose constituents live in that area is David Crawford, but alas he was apparently away and could not attend the meeting, no doubt something much more pressing came up.
His doppelganger, or double, was nearby during the day though, playing golf. A good healthy game that, and far better than stuffy council chambers.
For doppelgangers.

Paakwa is informed that Bentleys is possibly the preferred partner in Skipton's redevelopment scheme. This scheme is overseen by a small committee of six, chaired by Carl Lis who is aided by councillors David Crawford and Paul English.
Keen eyes might note some similarity in all the names above.
Paakwa is absolutely certain that equally hard bargains will be fought by the councillors in looking after the interest of Craven taxpayers as these doughty people have shown in bargaining so far. A bid of a tenner has been entered for the town hall, certain to be accepted, because if it isn't Paakwa has threatened to move out of town.

If the council follows its normal procedure at this time, then it will quite likely try to find someone to blame for letting this figure out into the public domain, instead of asking themselves what they were trying to hide, so here are three questions for councillors and council officers to contemplate:

If the price quoted is a fair price for that piece of land, then why the secrecy?
When is Craven district council going to stop pretending to be open and transparent?
and does anyone out there know how to spell predetermination?

The voting details from the 19^th December Policy Committee are as follows:

Amendment – That consideration of the request by Messrs J N Bentley’s to purchase land at Gargrave Road, Skipton is deferred to (a) enable officers to establish whether anyone else is interested in purchasing the land and (b) pending a report on what other options have been considered in respect of a site for relocating J N Bentley’s.

For: Councillors Mrs Fairbank, Foster, Turner, Whaites and Welch

Against: Councillors Barrington, Camacho, Polly English, Heather, Ireton, Lis, Mulligan, Place and Wheeler.

Motion – (1) That the offer made by J N Bentley’s for the field OS 5707, Gargrave Road, Skipton is noted.

(2) That the Council disposes of the land comprising field OS 5707 at Gargrave Road, Skipton to J N Benthley’s of Skipton, subject to the Council at least achieving the market valuation for the land as set out in the Valuation Report at Appendix C (exempt from publication) to the Director of Community Services’ report.

For: Councillors Barrington, Camacho, Polly English, Heather, Lis, Mulligan, Place and Wheeler.

Against: Councillors Mrs Fairbank, Ireton, Turner and Welch

Abstained: Councillors Foster and Whaites.

Part (2) of the motion will go forward to the Council Meeting on 22^nd January as a recommendation.

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.'

Praise me, for I am a Portfolio Holder!

Nearly 5 years ago Craven Housing bought, at a give away price of just over £5,000 each, 1,540 houses from Craven district council. One of the reasons they gave for Craven housing being better than the council at housing needs was given in the blurb they published, thus:

"One of the advantages of being part of Yorkshire housing is that it can help Craven Housing in developing new homes for rent in the Craven area. Yorkshire housing has agreed to assist Craven housing in providing an additional 20 homes per year."

Well that's good news surely?
Especially as Craven has been seriously bad in providing affordable homes (see HERE)
But at least we've had around 100 built as promised?
Er no...
We've had around one dozen built, some 90 fewer than Craven Housing's apparent promise.
And now that housing association, and Craven council, have seen fit to boast (Craven Herald 7/12/07) that 60 affordable homes are planned, some 30 fewer than should have already been built!

They even boast that these proposals have been the result of two years' work!
That's speed and efficiency council style!

And the pompously titled
'Craven district council's portfolio holder for addressing housing needs'
(who on earth dreams up these pretentious and vainglorious titles?) Paul English, late of Bootle and now blessing Craven, has this to say:

"Craven district council has been strengthening delivery of affordable housing for some years now."

Oh really?
This is the truth of the matter, unlike English's boastful words:

On the question of how well CDC understand its housing market and developed the right proposals, the Audit commission states:
'There is a high risk of failure and poor outcomes.'
Grade - High need for improvement

On the question of how well the council monitors its progress and how effectively this feeds into future plans, the Audit commission states:
'There is a high risk of failure and poor outcomes.'
Grade - High need for improvement

Perhaps it might be more fitting if apologies for not providing the 100 affordable homes already due were offered, instead of empty boasts?

Even now we are not to get these 60 houses for free, for it is our land which Craven district council is giving to Craven housing, without asking us if we are happy at that, just as in 2003 they virtually gave away our houses, and it is our money (around £3.5 Million) which Yorkshire Forward are giving to Craven housing.
It is also our money (another £3.5 Million) which the government is giving to Craven housing to build these 60 houses.
Why we're even told that on top of the free land and our money, Craven district council is to add some money for Craven housing, an unknown amount!
Isn't it good that the council has unlimited funds at its disposal, namely ours!

Now at £7 million already promised from us, a further undisclosed sum from us, £3.5 million from Yorkshire housing, and free land donated by us, one can assume that these houses are going to be little short of magnificent.
Not including the further sum of our money promised by Craven district council, that adds up to £175,000 per dwelling plus free land from us and a further sum from Craven council. As land prices are normally around 1/3 of house value, these houses should be worth an average of over £262,000 each!

To spell it out to council and councillors, we're now going to see pensioners and others on fixed incomes, who may live in small terraced cottages, paying to subsidise expensive houses for those who are better off than themselves. When pompously titled 'portfolio holders' boast of these acts, it merely adds insult to injury.

Of course we DID get around £8 Million for our houses in 2003, not far short of 3 years council tax payment from householders in Craven, and one might wonder where that has gone.
Wonder no more, it's gone on the almost 25% additional staff which the chief executive decided was needed, and of course everyone in Craven knows that services have improved for those millions don't we?
And we can all confidently expect to see a reduction in our council tax bills this year can't we, now that Craven district council has shown it has money to spare?

The household of Councillors English meanwhile demonstrates efficiency by claiming not one, not two, but THREE sets of allowances for IT equipment from we long suffering council tax payers!
That's the English way of doing things!

Infamy infamy! They've all got it...

Fame at last!

Paakwa has at last achieved fame – or at least notoriety!

All praise to those who merely wait on table, and tend to bars, for they also have ears to hear, and eyes to see...

It has come to Paakwa's ears that Ian Lockwood, ex-editor of the American-owned Craven Herald, was the after-dinner speaker at Craven District and Skipton Town Councils' annual civic dinner last Friday. In what looks like an act of Olympic obsequiousness Lockwood decided to curry favour by attacking Paakwa and the CravenMatters website.

He started by patting himself warmly on the back, telling councillors how objective and fair-minded he had been during his tenure as editor of the newspaper.
Objective and fair-minded?
That's a statement some might question.
Especially as under Lockwood's helm, the Craven Herald exemplified the first word in its title when covering district council matters.

The Herald failed to condemn the 'Renaissance' debacle, when the council planned to carpet Skipton with multistorey car parks, chain stores and blocks of flats – even though nearly six thousand Skipton residents voted against the proposals by 71.5% in an independent referendum conducted by the Electoral Reform Society.

Neither, under Lockwood's stewardship, did the Herald attack – or even question – the council's approval of the HML plan to build a massive office block on a protected greenfield site. Despite, yet again, being against the wishes of the majority of those consulted – from the people of Skipton to the Environment Agency.

Interestingly, the impartial and objective Mr Lockwood also sits alongside the chief executive of HML parent company, Skipton Building Society, as 'independent' members of the committee that determines councillors' pay.
This committee of only three who are clearly "objective and fair-minded," were so impressed by councillors' efficiency that they sanctioned a fivefold increase in their attendance allowances between 2001 and 2005.

In another example of civic miasma, the Lockwood-edited Herald was the only newspaper not to criticize a councilor who thought it reasonable to live some 450 miles distant from the Craven ward he represented, continuing to draw his £90 weekly allowance although uncontactable by telephone or email.
This disgrace was roundly attacked by The Yorkshire Post, even in national newspapers such as the Daily Mail, but not the 'objective and fair-minded' Herald.
Which, although it possessed all the facts, failed to print even a single column inch about the matter until the councilor concerned finally quit.

Worst of all, in yet another potential scoop for the Craven Herald, Paakwa pointed out the incredible waste of money in North Yorkshire police force by giving superintendants leather trimmed and sat-naved Volvo V90's and Range Rovers for their personal use. Jane Kenyon
who heads the self selecting quango North Yorkshire Police Authority for a trivial £18,000 plus for attending 4 meetings a year, was taken to task by Paakwa originally 18 months ago, and then HERE as long ago as last July.
Did the Craven Herald use this scoop?
Not a chance!
The Yorkshire Post finally did catch up with Cravenmatters last week (article HERE) in calling for the resignation of the gorgeous and pouting Kenyon, the Craven Herald under Lockwood never would have.

With the Herald continuing to brown-nose Craven District Council, the CravenMatters site is an essential counterbalance to CDC propaganda handouts, handouts which the Herald continues to print without criticism – or even question.

Neither does this site exist solely to criticize, as Lockwood alleged in his speech. When deserved, Paakwa has been happy to dish out compliments.

Here's one.

A bouquet to Robert Heseltine, a councilor who has been criticized by this site in the past and has no cause to defend Paakwa, despite which he publicly condemned Lockwood’s attack on free speech.

Well done Councilor Heseltine!