Belle Vue Mills – Chapter 3
The whole of this affair is shrouded in mystery – and Paakwa believes that to be deliberate.
Let’s take the happenings chronologically, noting how many of the documents from CDC are entitled “Exempt from publication.”
December 2006
A report to CDC’s full council committee states that “The Gargrave Road [HML] site is confirmed as the preferred location for replacement offices for Craven District Council.”
February 2007
CDC’s Planning Committee approve plans to build on the former green field Gargrave Road site, including a 35,000 ft2 building for new CDC offices plus 108 car parking spaces. The council’s [then] chief executive categorically states that “a new civic centre would be built off Gargrave Road as part of the new Homeloan Management Ltd development.”
May 2007
CDC commissions property development specialist GVA Grimley to undertake an office appraisal according to a specification in which CDC states Gargrave Road to be the preferred site for new council offices. The specifications given by CDC were:
Site and building must be owned outright by CDC;
The mechanism by which the offices are delivered must be “affordable” as specified in CDC’s ‘Skipton Developments’ Plan – in other words, paid for by the incomes generated by the Skipton Developments scheme;
The building should have a floor area of 35,000 square feet for CDC plus a further 6,000 ft2 for North Yorkshire County Council [NYCC].
All these specifications were met by the Gargrave Road site [GR]; NONE are met by Belle Vue Mills [BVM]. Consider these three key facts:
The Gargrave Road site – which would have been owned outright by CDC – allowed for 35,000 ft2 of offices for the council.
BVM is considerably smaller, with only 19,409 ft2 for CDC – just 55% of the floor area stated by CDC to be essential, although there is a further 10,242 ft2 for NYCC to be partly shared by CDC in such areas as reception.
An FOI request to CDC elicited the following information and reply:
CDC: -
“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.
Response:
“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.”
Their reply will be posted here on arrival.
One more point:
NYCC had determined that a 30 year lease was best value for them, but they seem to have changed their minds, around the same time that many things happened in a very short space of time - more of that later.
Affordable through Skipton Developments?
CDC originally stated that Skipton Developments would generate £1.7 million from the sale of its former offices in Granville Street in 2009/10. This does not appear to have happened as far as can be seen.
A thought. - Original information was that CDC’s new offices were to be funded through the sale of the council houses which netted £8 Million - where has the £8 Million gone?
Worse still – CDC’s pension position is appalling; just look at these figures:
2006/7 – deficit of £15,612,000
2007/8 – deficit of £20,482,000
2008/9 – deficit of £21,009,000
2009/10-deficit of £26,836,000 – around £100,000 per employee.
So what is CDC doing to rectify this rapidly worsening position?
“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.
Response:
“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.”
Their reply will be posted here on arrival.
One more point:
NYCC had determined that a 30 year lease was best value for them, but they seem to have changed their minds, around the same time that many things happened in a very short space of time - more of that later.
Affordable through Skipton Developments?
CDC originally stated that Skipton Developments would generate £1.7 million from the sale of its former offices in Granville Street in 2009/10. This does not appear to have happened as far as can be seen.
A thought. - Original information was that CDC’s new offices were to be funded through the sale of the council houses which netted £8 Million - where has the £8 Million gone?
Worse still – CDC’s pension position is appalling; just look at these figures:
2006/7 – deficit of £15,612,000
2007/8 – deficit of £20,482,000
2008/9 – deficit of £21,009,000
2009/10-deficit of £26,836,000 – around £100,000 per employee.
So what is CDC doing to rectify this rapidly worsening position?
Our ‘open and transparent’ council is plundering £1,260,000 from
CDC’s Staff Pension Fund to finance its occupancy of Belle Vue Mills!
CDC’s Staff Pension Fund to finance its occupancy of Belle Vue Mills!
What about parking?
The original GR site allowed for 108 car parking spaces. Belle Vue Mills has 28 parking spaces, reserved for visitors and councillors, and none for staff.
Interestingly the report rounds the 108 down to 100, and states “insufficient parking for all staff and visitors.”
That same report states of the mill “Limited Parking.” Well yes, zero IS fairly limited!
And here’s a few more facts for your delectation and delight …
|
●
|
9th October, 2008 – A report from consulting engineers firm F R Varley states there is little wrong with Granville Street that attention over the next two years cannot put right. The cost of refurbishing was put at under £750,000
|
|
●
|
29th October, 2008 – Despite which councillors are recommended to accept that a move to Belle Vue Mills is best. The documents attached to this report appear to be little more than a mish-mash of untruths.
|
“Over eight years ago the current headquarters at Granville Street was given a further five years of life, so there is a common understanding that the building is living on borrowed time. Members are familiar with this background, but as a reminder, Appendix A sets out more detail”
Appendix A does not set out any more detail at all – indeed with the exception of the Chief Executive and the Council Leader, Paakwa is unable to find anyone who does posess this ‘common understanding’ referred to in this report.
The best Appendix A can manage is a statement made in 2005 by CDC’s (then) Chief Executive, Gill Dixon, in 2005 which stated that a repair would be more costly than a new build solution. This was backed up by the (then) leader Carl Lis, who stated that the problems had been confirmed in numerous independent studies.
It has been impossible to find these numerous studies, only those of 1999 and 2008 from the consulting engineers, the final report stating:
“At the present time the joints could be repaired extending the life of the building considerably.” – The cost of all repairs was apparently put at between £680,000 and £750,000
It is often stated that bureaucratic bodies such as councils move slowly – notice the speed of events about to unroll before your very eyes!!!
Appendix A does not set out any more detail at all – indeed with the exception of the Chief Executive and the Council Leader, Paakwa is unable to find anyone who does posess this ‘common understanding’ referred to in this report.
The best Appendix A can manage is a statement made in 2005 by CDC’s (then) Chief Executive, Gill Dixon, in 2005 which stated that a repair would be more costly than a new build solution. This was backed up by the (then) leader Carl Lis, who stated that the problems had been confirmed in numerous independent studies.
It has been impossible to find these numerous studies, only those of 1999 and 2008 from the consulting engineers, the final report stating:
“At the present time the joints could be repaired extending the life of the building considerably.” – The cost of all repairs was apparently put at between £680,000 and £750,000
It is often stated that bureaucratic bodies such as councils move slowly – notice the speed of events about to unroll before your very eyes!!!
11 November 2008: Gargrave estate agency Westlakes was commissioned to provide a report stating which option was the best value for CDC’s new offices.
27 November 2008: Report concluded and delivered!
That report by Westlake’s stated that the Belle Vue Mills was the best value for money option – BUT – it also stated:
“We are aware that CDC/NYCC have undertaken a detailed evaluation of several other potential sites in Skipton, all of which are deemed to be less suitable or cost-effective than Belle Vue Mills.”
Westlakes was never asked to compare anything other than the three options available from Belle Vue Mills. And nor, it seems has CDC or anyone else!
There is more – much more – to come in this saga.
Most of us will remember the sorry tale of CDC’s incompetence over Gargrave Road land sale to HML – losing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, with never a person brought to account, following standard council practice.
Following that debacle it was deemed important that proper valuations be made of all council (our) property, land etc. which was up for sale; this is called a ‘red book’ valuation, and reflects market conditions at the prevailing time.
Westlakes do not appear to have been asked to provide one, and yet both Westlakes and CDC’s own surveyors should have advised council that such was necessary, following Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors professional duty guidelines – where is such a valuation?
Westlake’s report states the following:
10.5 We are aware that CDC/NYCC have undertaken a detailed evaluation of several other potential sites in Skipton, all of which are deemed to be less suitable or cost-effective than Belle Vue Mills.
|
●
|
So who told Westlakes that there was no suitable site in Skipton?
|
|
●
|
Who ruled out HML building - a central office priced at around 1/3 of the price of BVM and a building which could be used earlier than BVM?
|
|
●
|
Who was it preferred a building at around half the required size, with no staff parking?
|
The only comment Paakwa can find on this very important and serious matter is from council leader Cllr. Knowles-Fitton, who wrote:
In fact there was a Value for Money Assessment carried out by Westlake & co. – chartered surveyors… it was recognised that a V.F.M. assessment was the most appropriate and informative way of calculating the best deal for the Council.
Recognised by whom Cllr?
Who was it that decided not to have a proper valuation made of Belle Vue Mills?
Who decided to rush matters through using the excuse of the HML building (at one third the price of BVM remember) not being available at the time of the report, although it would be ready long before BVM was?
Who decided that advice from CDC’s own officers, including the Head of Finance, should be ignored?
More on this is to come, meanwhile Paakwa leaves readers with this puzzle:
Cllr. Knowles-Fitton has apparently been at pains to ensure that it was Belle Vue Mills which was chosen for CDC’s new offices. Susan Goodhall, then Head of Finance at CDC, wrote to him as follows in October 2009:
“I still think that we should go for the purchase of the HML building… We should work on what we know and have planned for. The HML building will be more saleable in the future than BVM floors”
His reply:
For your eyes only this next bit – I suppose it’s all for your eyes only! I don’t believe what Graham Burke is telling Paul about having to sell another 14 apartments before the next tranche of bank funding is released. I suspect that whatever Novo sell, the revenue will get snaffled by the bank and I suspect that Novo are simply playing the old trick of delaying tactics to keep us in the loop. It’s not impossible that there could be a creditor or two who are getting browned off at the same tactic and who might try putting in a winding-up order on the basis that, if they’re not owed too much money, the bank might just be prepared to release what they’re owed to prevent total collapse.
If indeed the sale of another 14 units will trigger the Yorkshire Bank to release enough funding for them to complete our offices, why don’t we think of buying them?
You, more than anyone, is convinced that in the not too distant future, they’ll make someone a good profit – why not us?
Will talk further with you alone.
Hence the question – who is ‘us?’ And why did CDC six months later sign for the lease of BVM?
And what has happened to the people who apparently investigated the HML building, or pointed out to the council leader and Chief Executive some serious mistakes which they thought were being made?
Next Chapter – Oh Yes! – Some more to come!