Paakwa researches thoroughly all that is published, but, being only a frog, he can make mistakes.
If YOU notice a mistake, please tell Paakwa by clicking HERE and letting him know.

Belle Vue Mills has regrettably had to be put on hold for the time being. The reason for this is simply that more questions have had to be asked of Craven District Council, and as yet no replies have arrived.

What questions?
Very simple ones.

There is a laid down procedure for disposing of council assets, and another procedure for acquiring them.
CDC are famous for ignoring disposal of assets requirements - the virtual give away of our land to HML for peanuts was criticised by the Audit Commission, but then again criticism by the Audit Commission is something CDC is well used to!
Now it appears that they may be equally cavalier in their purchasing methods.

Having been informed that there was a complete folder concerning the information upon which the council’s decision to acquire Belle Vue Mills was made, Paakwa immediately set about reading this folder.
The expectation was that there would be the RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) red book valuations given at the time of consideration, and also at the time of entering into a legal obligation. Such valuations were deemed necessary by council rules, and council was also instructed to abide by those rules following the Gargrave Road land giveaway.

Another document specified as necessary in the council’s own property strategy is the full cost benefit analysis, with the agreement of the Head of Finance.

Readers will not be surprised to read that none of these documents were there.

And so they have been requested, some 11 days ago. When - or rather If - they are produced, then they will be published.

Meanwhile readers might like to consider the following:

Q - What happened to the last Director of Finance, whose agreement  to the full cost benefit analysis was a requirement?
Hint - She stated in a leaked email that a move to Belle Vue Mills was not the best answer, but that a move to HML’s old building was the best solution. At one third the cost and freehold instead of leasehold remember!

A - She left, in what can only be described as at considerable speed, in June of 2010 - Contracts were signed and reported as signed on 7th July July of 2010, and an email from CDC of 27th July states
“I can advise you that the legal documentation for Belle Vue Mills was supported by the Financial Officer who carried out the negotiations on behalf of the Council.”
Strangely enough Paakwa has been informed that the contract may have been signed in April of that year. But the main question remains:

The Craven Herald of 29th September 2011 carries the news that the Granville Street site has been sold for £675,000 although it was stated in 2008 that it would bring in £1.7 Million!- it also states that £200,000 has been received from Maple Grove for 9 High Street as a down payment. Indeed the Funding Resources spreadsheet for CDC reminds one of of the American saying - Dead man walking.’
To fund Belle Vue Mills acquisition CDC is apparently relying on taking £2Million from reserves in addition to flogging off the family silver such as Settle Town Hall and 9 High Street - Details HERE.

Maple Grove will not be buying a pig in a poke, they will be fully aware of what this financially incompetent council is negotiating - but more of that later.
For now let’s see what CDC propose to sell in what is sure to be another display of financial incompetence when dealing with our assets. According to Skipton Civic Society - HERE - no fewer than 66 car parking spaces and 11 coach parking spaces are to be included in the sale.

So what exactly is a car parking space worth?
Well we can thank Eddisons for information on that score, that company being the one which CDC used to sell off their old furniture for around £7,000 so that they could buy brand new furniture for £90,000

Eddisons lately sold 4 car parking spaces at auction. Those spaces fetched around £2,500 each year in parking fees, whilst those at the town hall apparently only bring in around £2,000 each.

The 4 which Eddisons auctioned went at the price of £105,000 - around £26,000 each and ten times their annual income. Details HERE.
Pro rata, that would put those at Skipton at around £1,390,000 - even if they only brought in £1,000 p.a. each it would value those car parking spaces as worth £693,000 to which must be added 11 coach spaces and number 9 High Street!

Meanwhile, it having been reported that CDC has received £675,000 for Granville Street, how does that come up to earlier expectations?

Well the 2008 report stated that Granville Street was going to provide £1,700,000 towards Belle Vue Mills, looks like prices are dropping everywhere, EXCEPT for CDC’s purchase of Belle Vue Mills!

Paakwa is used to seeing the incompetence of CDC in money matters, except when it comes to increasing pay for officers and councillors, but this surely beggars belief!

It appears that somebody at CDC has apparently negotiated a total price of £875,000 for the sale of 9 High Street, now to include lots of lovely car and coach parking spaces, and will now lean on councillors to grant planning consent under the threat of reducing services, in order to fund a long lease at a new property, which poses the questions:

Who negotiated that amount - it does not appear to have been councillors?

Who set the price, a price apparently agreed to by Maple Grove, along with an upfront payment?

Exactly what is the Audit Committee (Chairman Cllr. Place) doing about this and Belle Vue Mills?

Is there not one single councillor at CDC who is willing to stand up and be counted in this squandering of our assets, and despoiling of Skipton?

Not one who thinks that putting pressure on councillors to grant planning consent for their own land in a desperately needed sale does not consist of a conflict of interest?

And finally - Is CDC incompetent - or corrupt?

CDC is in the news again with the district auditor investigating the process used concerning the disposal of 9 High Street - see below for more on that - but what part does the district auditor play in examining finances?

The accounts for 2010/11 are published HERE and Mr. Cameron Waddell, the person presently reviewing the disposal of 9 High Street, has made a statement on pages 72-75  His conclusion is very reassuring, it reads:

“I am satisfied that, in all significant respects, Craven District Council put in place proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources for the year ending 31 March 2011.”
Whether the acquisition of Belle Vue Mills and the disposal of 9 High Street are efficient and economic may be the subject of differing views.

But the Audit Commission does not  play the first part in this scrutiny -Council finances are first looked at by what is called an ‘internal auditor’ who picks up any problems, and points out any errors; so let’s look at what the internal auditor had to say about the latest accounts.

The full report is HERE but let’s look at a few statements made by that auditor:

Beginning with the grading, there are four grades given and a ‘traffic light’ system used for ease. Green is good, yellow not so good, with some improvements needed. Orange is worse still, with weaknesses identified, inconsistent application of controls, and service objectives at risk.
Craven’s is orange.

But what are these weaknesses?

These too are graded, with Priority 1 being the most urgent or serious - so let’s look at some Priority 1 matters:

It means that
‘The Council’s operating policies are not in line with good practice, which could result in officers making inappropriate investment and borrowing decisions.’

And the report states:

‘The Treasury Management Strategy does not formally name who is responsible for the scrutiny of the Treasury Management function, it makes no reference to the need for mid-year reviews, members have not been informed of the need to receive relevant training, nor that they are personally responsible for ensuring they have the necessary skills to address Treasury Management Issues.
Furthermore 2 of the key controls have not been met at all, namely that investments have not been completed in accordance with Treasury Management procedures and long/short-term loans and borrowings have not been raised in line with council policy’

All of which appears to beg the question of the Audit Committee, whose remit might have been thought to include such matters.

The Society? - Skipton Building Society.
Is this important? - Well according to the BBC and the Guardian this week Skipton Building Society was apparently downgraded - HERE and HERE.

More still on building societies - CDC invested £500,000 with Kent Reliance Building Society, £1.8 Million with Stroud and Swindon Building society, neither of which had a Moody’s - Fitch’s - or Standard and Poor rating. It also invested 2X £1Million with Newcastle Building Society, which had a rating of BBB- in breach of the Treasury Strategy Statement.
Does this matter?
Well yes, if government support is removed, which has been reported as a possibility for some, including Skipton Building Society, then only the first £85,000 of money is guaranteed should the society fail!
More information can be read on Skipton Building Society HERE.

Craven District Council is no stranger to criticism from auditors in the past -  the 2008 Audit Commission report for example quoting the ‘material misstatements’ in the accounts, and awarding a 1 - as bad as it can get - in Financial Reporting.

In 2009, The Annual Audit letter stated:

“The Council did not effectively manage its finances during the first part of 2008/09” And
“Treasury management was ineffective during the year. A strategy for 2008/09, not agreed until December 2008, was
“not fit for purpose…we have yet to see how the Council will resolve the longer term position.”

Giving ‘scores’ of 1 each for Managing Finances and Managing Resources.

Whilst the Annual Audit Letter of 2010 complained that there were inadequate arrangements for financial reporting and noted:
“The financial statements produced by the 30 June deadline contained errors in all the primary statements, as well as in the disclosure notes. Some of the errors were material and required amendment before I could issue my opinion on 8 October 2010.”

Stop Press!! Following Craven Herald article (see HERE first) A Long lost Libretto

A Freedom of Information request has elicited an Existing Use Value (EUV) document concerning Belle Vue Mills. This was not what was requested, of course, and has taken many months to arrive. What was requested was the Market Valuation, a statutory requirement before spending huge chunks (around £4 Million in this case) of our public money.
This has never arrived, and its existence seems doubtful.

But do read this EUV - it does have matters of interest. Quotations from it are in RED.

For example:

It has a nice picture - unfortunately mainly NOT of the council leased property, which is to the left of the picture.

The date of the report- after the lease was signed, which might appear to be a strange time to ask for an “immediate valuation.” Section 1.1

The Executive Summary, which states under opinion of value:
1) I am of the opinion that the “Existing Use Value” of the freehold interest would be best reflected in a sum in the order of £3,468,000 (Three Million Four Hundred And Sixty EightThousand Pounds)

This seems interesting, as CDC do not have the freehold, only the leasehold. However the report does go on to say:
“I am of the opinion that the current “Existing Use Value” of the long leasehold interest is £3,468,000”

Does this mean that there is no difference in value between the leasehold and the freehold? Really?

No structural, building, or measured surveys were undertaken, leading to this comment:
“Based on the District Council floor areas I am advised that the Building has a Net Internal Area (NIA) of 1811 m2. or 19,500 ft2.
I have noted that the lease states that the floor area consists of 19,409 square metres and for the purposes of this report would note that if the measured area is 19,409 square metres this does not affect my opinion of value.”

Now Paakwa is only a little frog, but even he understands the difference between 1,811 square metres and 19,409 square metres! Still, we are assured that this difference in area “does not affect my opinion of value.” Section 2.8
See “Size Doesn’t Matter” at the end of this chapter for CDC’s responses in matters of area.


The report also states:
“The date of valuation is the date of my Report. I would draw your attention to the fact that values change over time and that a valuation given on a particular date may not be valid on an earlier or later date.”

Surely CDC would not try to use this report a verification of value before acquisition would they? No, surely not!


Here’s another interesting statement:
“ I have not made formal investigations as to any flood risks in respect of the subject site. I have noted the presence of the canal to the rear of the property and a contribution contained within the draft service charge schedule for ‘’flood alleviation/Barriers/Eller Beck.
I have not been provided with any specific information in relation to any specific flood risk attaching to Belle Vue Mills and for the purposes of this report have assumed it is free from any such risk.

Well is it? Free from any such risk that is? Paakwa has been informed by his froggy friends around that damp area that they were looking forward to the underground pond - sorry car park - which was at one time contemplated. Still, car parking has been proven to be unnecessary, hasn’t it? Showing that CDC were quite right in ignoring parking space rules applicable to ordinary (ie non council) offices. ‘Ordinary’ companies have to provide parking - not our beloved district council!


Here’s another:
“The valuation has been prepared in accordance with the RICS Valuation Standards Global and UK, 7th Edition except where agreed departures have been made in accordance with your (CDC) instructions.”

Paakwa has asked for information concerning these ‘agreed departures,’ and will publish them when available.

Meanwhile Paakwa is researching as to whether CDC indeed has - as it is required to have - a market valuation BEFORE acquiring assets, but this is looking increasingly less likely.

CDC has always seemed to have a problem with areas. Originally they stated via GVA Grimley that a minimum of 35,000 sq. ft. was essential, it seemed peculiar that they could settle for just over half that, and so a FOI request was sent in:

From: CRAG
Sent: 13 August 2011 16:29
Subject: RE: FoI Request


I note that there is a large shared area in Belle Vue Mills, that sharing being between CDC and NYCC –the CDC area at under 19,000 sq.ft being little over half of that stated to be essential in the requirements given to GVA Grimley.


From: CDC
Sent: 23 August 2011 11:28
Subject: RE: FoI Request


There are two reasons for the reduction in the size of the space for the office accommodation.  The first of these I have referred to previously, that is the 35,000 sq ft relating to the potential Gargrave Road, Skipton site was a gross floor area, whereas Belle Vue Square is the net internal floor space..  The second is that the Council re-assessed its spatial requirements in the context of moving to more flexible working arrangements, including adopting policies, which will facilitate more home working.

From: CRAG
Sent: 23 August 2011 11:56

Thank you for your response, which unfortunately does not quite clarify matters.

Firstly - Are you stating that the walls of the potential Gargrave Road site equated to almost 50% of the gross floor area? This seems, on the face of it, to be nonsense.

Secondly – And possibly more importantly - Are you stating that despite the HML building becoming available before Belle Vue Mills, and at an asking price of around 1/3 per square foot of BVM costs for the freehold, no consideration was given to this potential considerable saving of taxpayers’ money? You write “Until it became clear that the council’s commitment to Belle Vue Mills was still viable” Please inform me as to whomsoever decided that BVM was viable at a cost of £170/sq.ft as Westlake’s have reported that they were told that the council had ruled out any other properties in Skipton.

To clarify my requests – CDC has contracted to spend over £4 Million of taxpayers’ money on leasing a building with extremely limited parking (none for staff) and at a cost which includes extracting money from a pension fund which was, at the last count, some £27 Million in deficit. It also necessitates further sales of taxpayers’ property with some haste, potentially putting pressure onto councillors to accept offers for 9 High Street and/or Granville Road at a time when property prices have decreased considerably – except in the case of Belle Vue Mills apparently, where the council still accepted £170/sq. ft as reasonable.

The council’s record in financial matters is not good – Gargrave Road sale for example – and I am sure you can see the necessity for openness and transparency in the matter of BVM acquisition at this very high price, when an alternative was available which apparently should have been considered. The question is – why was it not considered? Of especial importance is the email between the head of finance and the council leader, in which preference was stated by both to the HML building – who ignored that preference, coming, as it did, from supposedly informed sources?

From: CDC
Sent: 06 September 2011 11:06
Subject: RE: FoI Request

The Council has fulfilled its obligations under the Environmental Information Regulations and Freedom of Information legislation in connection with your original requests.

The facts are that the Council made a decision in late 2008 to acquire office accommodation at Belle Vue Mills (now Belle Vue Square), Skipton to fulfil its needs.  There was a short period when it was questionable whether the original decision might have been able to be implemented.  This was when Novo Homes was experiencing difficulties.  That issue was overcome when Rushbond took on the development and so, the Council’s original decision was able to be implemented. 

So there we have the official answer:

CDC had decided to move to BVM in 2008, and they weren’t going to modify that decision, although the lease wasn’t signed until June 2011 - some three years later!
They’d also contracted to pay £170 per Sq. Ft. And they weren’t going to alter that, despite property prices having rocketed downwards, as shown in their halving the amount they expected to get for Granville Street.
They could have had the 35,000 Sq. Ft. they stated was essential by buying HML’s old building - this came with car parking, and they would have been at least £1Million better off.
They’d been told by the Head of Finance that BVM was the wrong choice, and there has not been a value for money estimate made of BVM before signing the lease - at least several months of asking for this has not produced it

So just who insisted on going ahead with BVM?
These are serious matters - and CRAG will pursue them until some accountability is seen.
And that’s a promise.