July 2011-Belle Vue Mills
Chapter 1- The mystery deepens.
Chapter 1- The mystery deepens.
Craven District Council will soon be moving its offices to Belle Vue Mills, at a basic cost of over £4 million for a lease plus an unknown amount for service costs. This building is, according to CDC’s own officers in proposals agreed by councillors:
|
●
|
Too small
|
|
●
|
Not freehold
|
|
●
|
And with No car parking for staff or customers (that’s us, fellow council taxpayers).
|
How did this ludicrous, appallingly wasteful situation come about?
It started way back in 1964, when CDC moved its offices to Granville Street, at huge cost to taxpayers which, we were told, would provide appropriate accommodation for many, many years to come – quite reasonable, as many live in houses built long before 1964!
Thirty-five later, in 1999, CDC commissioned a structural surveyor’s report on the Granville Street building which identified a few minor but rectifiable problems.
Yet in December 2008 a report penned by Interim Chief Executive Gill Dixon stated:
It started way back in 1964, when CDC moved its offices to Granville Street, at huge cost to taxpayers which, we were told, would provide appropriate accommodation for many, many years to come – quite reasonable, as many live in houses built long before 1964!
Thirty-five later, in 1999, CDC commissioned a structural surveyor’s report on the Granville Street building which identified a few minor but rectifiable problems.
Yet in December 2008 a report penned by Interim Chief Executive Gill Dixon stated:
“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.”
Now where on earth did that curious (and unspecified) “common understanding” come from?
Ms Dixon [more about that lady below] stated in 2005:
“The report states that due to corrosion of the steel frame of the building “the required major repair would not be an economic alternative as it would necessitate a virtual replacement of all the fabric…. And would be more costly than a new build solution”
This was backed by Council Leader Carl Lis, at the time an Independent member having defected from the Lib-Dems (and these days a convenient Conservative), who said:
“There has been a number of misunderstandings amongst the public regarding the need for new offices for Craven District Council. Although the current council offices appear on the surface to be in a reasonable state of repair, the structural issues with the steel frame have been confirmed in numerous independent studies commissioned for the council over recent years.”
Oh really? But there’s more to come!
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, a vigilant taxpayer managed to obtain copies of these purportedly damning surveyor’s reports. Here’s the independent report submitted in 1999
In 2008 a further surveyor’s report was produced, noting that the remedial works recommended nine years earlier had not been carried out, but stating that for a little work being done, the life of the building could be considerably extended.
This produced a apparent untruth from the Interim Chief Executive – so peculiar that that I’ll repeat it …
“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.”
Readers might like to check Ms Dixon’s incredible statement against the surveyor’s 1999 report Can you find any reference to “living on borrowed time”? Paakwa certainly can’t!
For the consumption of the public and gullible councillors Ms Dixon misinterpreted – possibly wilfully – the 2008 report’s unequivocal conclusion that there were no fundamental problems in the Granville Street offices. It added that spending £2 million on the building would give a further twenty years of life. This professional opinion hardly squares with Ms Dixon’s curious interpretation that “the building is living on borrowed time”.
Another construction professional, Brian Verity of Skipton Properties, whose opinion was unquestionably better qualified than that of Ms Dixon, emailed to his close friend Council leader Knowles-Fitton as follows:
From: Brian Verity [mailto:bverity@skiptonproperties.com]
Sent: 23 September 2009 07:35
To: Chris Knowles-Fitton
Subject: RE:
Chris
On another subject bell vue mills, is the developer going to be able to deliver?
My intelligence suggest you are still willing to pay too much, and there is such a deficit in value terms the companies bankers are putting the sum of the site altogether and it does not stack up.
I was with bankers yesterday who are dealing with flatted schemes up and down the country and the only way forward is to let the schemes go into bankruptcy the developer looses all is equity in the scheme, it is then picked up for a fraction of its value before the crash and it then moves on but it is time consuming.
You should stay where you are and tart it up, because in reality that is all that needs doing to it.
Brian
Sent: 23 September 2009 07:35
To: Chris Knowles-Fitton
Subject: RE:
Chris
On another subject bell vue mills, is the developer going to be able to deliver?
My intelligence suggest you are still willing to pay too much, and there is such a deficit in value terms the companies bankers are putting the sum of the site altogether and it does not stack up.
I was with bankers yesterday who are dealing with flatted schemes up and down the country and the only way forward is to let the schemes go into bankruptcy the developer looses all is equity in the scheme, it is then picked up for a fraction of its value before the crash and it then moves on but it is time consuming.
You should stay where you are and tart it up, because in reality that is all that needs doing to it.
Brian
So there we have a respected local builder telling the council leader that all Granville Street needed, at the end of 2009, was a bit of ‘tarting up.”
In addition - and a serious addition at that - he was pointing out that with financial constraints happening across the country, then it should be possible to pick up Belle Vue Mills at a reduced price. Now that’s something which should have been pretty obvious!
Was this advice heeded?
No way! A mere two months later Cllr Knowles-Fitton told The Craven Herald that: “The council needed to move from its 48-year-old Granville Street premises, which are already more than 10 years past their sell-by date.”
Reinforcing his intention to see Belle Vue Mills purchased at the original high price asked, Knowles-Fitton continued: “Despite extensive maintenance in recent years, [Granville Street] is now reaching the end of its useful life and only an injection approaching £2 million would extend it for another 10 years.”
So only two months after the Chief Executive had stated that the building would require £2Million to give it a further life of 20 years - itself a statement without apparent foundation - Knowles-Fitton reduced the 20 to 10, thereby displaying the grasp of mathematics for which CDC is justly famed, namely 20 years minus two months equals 10 years!
Having implied that Granville Street was only held up by the hot air generated within it, Knowles-Fitton and his political cronies decided to move their talking shop elsewhere. But where?
In addition - and a serious addition at that - he was pointing out that with financial constraints happening across the country, then it should be possible to pick up Belle Vue Mills at a reduced price. Now that’s something which should have been pretty obvious!
Was this advice heeded?
No way! A mere two months later Cllr Knowles-Fitton told The Craven Herald that: “The council needed to move from its 48-year-old Granville Street premises, which are already more than 10 years past their sell-by date.”
Reinforcing his intention to see Belle Vue Mills purchased at the original high price asked, Knowles-Fitton continued: “Despite extensive maintenance in recent years, [Granville Street] is now reaching the end of its useful life and only an injection approaching £2 million would extend it for another 10 years.”
So only two months after the Chief Executive had stated that the building would require £2Million to give it a further life of 20 years - itself a statement without apparent foundation - Knowles-Fitton reduced the 20 to 10, thereby displaying the grasp of mathematics for which CDC is justly famed, namely 20 years minus two months equals 10 years!
Having implied that Granville Street was only held up by the hot air generated within it, Knowles-Fitton and his political cronies decided to move their talking shop elsewhere. But where?
Where to go?
CDC spent yet more taxpayers’ money by employing its Renaissance partner, GVA Grimley, to come up with an answer - and answer they did!
They stated
1. SPECIFICATION/REQUIREMENT
1.1 The following criteria have been identified as the primary requirements for a new council offices development:
1.2 The new building/site must be owned by Craven District Council.
1.5 A brief specification of the proposed CDC office building is as follows:
The building should provide a floor area of 35,000sqft;
But where could CDC find such a gem?
Why! On their own land at Gargrave Road!
According to Grimley, the CDC accommodation would provide 3,252sqm (35,004sqft) comprising a three storey building with 108 car parking spaces, just what the doctor ordered!
And to add to the delight, the document of Grimleys stated in paragraph 7.17
Why! On their own land at Gargrave Road!
According to Grimley, the CDC accommodation would provide 3,252sqm (35,004sqft) comprising a three storey building with 108 car parking spaces, just what the doctor ordered!
And to add to the delight, the document of Grimleys stated in paragraph 7.17
“SBS [Skipton Building Society] has offered to construct CDC offices to a pre-agreed specification with the offices constructed to a shell finish only, precise definition of shell finish still to be agreed. The internal fit out and services for the CDC building would need to be procured by CDC as part of the Skipton Developments contract. This offer is the subject of a separate discussion to be held between the Council and SBS.”
So, as part of the deal in which it acquired the council-owned greenfield site to build new offices for its HML subsidiary, Skipton Building Society had offered to build the shell of CDC’s new offices. This would:
|
●
|
Be big enough at 35,000 square feet;
|
|
●
|
Have 108 parking places;
|
|
●
|
Be commensurate with the recommendations of CDC’s own Director of Finance;
|
|
●
|
And benefit from the planning consent already granted by CDC to itself and HML to build on this greenfield site.
|
So was it off to Gargrave Road in the near future?
For some incredible reason, the answer was NO! And readers might well wonder why?
A certain reconstruction project in Skipton Town Centre – Belle Vue Mills – was in desperate straits with all work halted due to financial problems experienced by the site’s developers of the owners.
Which led a senior and highly influential person within CDC to consider a cunning plan: Why not ‘persuade’ the council to change its mind about the Gargrave Road site and instead support this ailing development?
Susan Goodhall, the [then] Director of Finance at CDC, was not enthused by this suggestion; instead she emailed Knowles-Fitton with yet another alternative proposal:
“I still think that we should go for the purchase of the HML building with the County – the college won’t have the funds to do anything for the next 2/3 years – by then, Craven’s future will be clearer.
We need to get the council as stable as poss as quickly as poss otherwise staff are going to start leaving and it’s always the best that go first.
We should work on what we know and have planned for. The HML building will be more saleable in the future than BVM floors (in my view). Plus we would in it with the County.”
We need to get the council as stable as poss as quickly as poss otherwise staff are going to start leaving and it’s always the best that go first.
We should work on what we know and have planned for. The HML building will be more saleable in the future than BVM floors (in my view). Plus we would in it with the County.”
And Knowles-Fitton’s response?
From: Chris Knowles-Fitton [mailto:chris@knowleslodge.com]
Sent: 25 October 2009 15:18
To: Susan Goodhall
Subject: some further thoughts
Sue,
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.
Rgds
Chris
Sent: 25 October 2009 15:18
To: Susan Goodhall
Subject: some further thoughts
Sue,
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.
Rgds
Chris
Shortly after that Mrs Goodhall abruptly left CDC for reasons unknown. And what did Knowles-Fitton reportedly say about that?
“The authority has praised her efforts turning around their struggling finances, stating that she "completely overhauled Financial Services" and led negotiations over the move to new offices Belle Vue Mills.
Coun Knowles-Fitton, said: "In taking on a very difficult role she went beyond what could reasonably been expected of her and spent whatever time was required to get us out of a near disastrous situation."
Coun Knowles-Fitton, said: "In taking on a very difficult role she went beyond what could reasonably been expected of her and spent whatever time was required to get us out of a near disastrous situation."
There are those who might interpret the leaked email from Goodhall as being against a move to Belle Vue Mills. Which just goes to show how it’s easy to be mistaken!
For a wily politician like Knowles-Fitton, there was little difficulty in persuading CDC’s more malleable elected members to agree to such a move, given that most councillors tend to go along with whatever their leader and officers say.
But the public? Ah! They could be a nuisance! Knowles-Fitton and his cronies certainly wouldn’t want the public to take an interest in their manoeuvrings!
So a critically important council meeting to discuss the move to Belle Vue Mills was held – not in the council chamber at Granville Street; not at Skipton Town Hall; but sixteen miles distant at Settle, on a Monday afternoon!
Needless to say, this critical meeting received little prior publicity, with the Agenda for the Planning Committee meeting of 24 August 2009 published a mere five days prior. And the sole reference to the highly controversial BellVue Mills proposal was buried thus in a mass of documentation and bureaucratic gobbledygook:
Schedule of Plans – Attached. Schedules have also been supplied to Ward Representatives.
The chairman of Craven Ratepayers Action Group [CRAG] responded thus to CDC’s covert camouflage:
There is no mention of the fact that Belle Vue Mills is to be discussed save as:
5. Schedule of Plans – Attached. Schedules have also been supplied to Ward Representatives.
Thereby not informing the public at all, a deliberate, act in my opinion, of keeping the public in the dark.
Large scale matters such as this should not have been ‘shoved’ into a Settle meeting, it should have been discussed at Skipton where those effected could have been involved, and the public should have had advance information aplenty on this matter.
CRAG has pointed out many shameful acts committed by Craven District Council, but none, I think, more shameful. The moving to Belle Vue Mills is being kept as secret as possible, including financial details. You have responded in the past that financial details should be kept secret so as not to possibly harm future negotiations by the developer to other interested parties, I do not believe that it is the duty of a District Council to protect developers, the first call of duty should be to the taxpayers, not to big business
Large scale matters such as this should not have been ‘shoved’ into a Settle meeting, it should have been discussed at Skipton where those effected could have been involved, and the public should have had advance information aplenty on this matter.
CRAG has pointed out many shameful acts committed by Craven District Council, but none, I think, more shameful. The moving to Belle Vue Mills is being kept as secret as possible, including financial details. You have responded in the past that financial details should be kept secret so as not to possibly harm future negotiations by the developer to other interested parties, I do not believe that it is the duty of a District Council to protect developers, the first call of duty should be to the taxpayers, not to big business
To make absolutely sure that councillors voted for Belle Vue Mills as the preferred choice for CDC’s new offices, they were fed a pack of misinformation:
|
●
|
That a move to the previously agreed site at Gargrave Road would cost circa £8 million;
|
|
●
|
That this equates to a building cost of some £3,000/sq.mtr (assuming councillors were happy with the site’s 29,000 sq ft;
|
An equation that is clearly ludicrous.
And so CRAG sent in more queries to CDC:
“According to the blog of Councillor Helen Firth, the cost of building new offices at Gargrave Road would have been over £8m, making the leasing of Belle Vue Mills at under half that financially preferable. As CDC are accept 29,000 square feet, or around 2,700 square metres, this equates to approx £3000 per square metre – a colossal cost. Please supply details of this costing, including its source and number of estimates CDC had for this proposed building (at Gargrave Road), which made Belle Vue Mills more financially attractive.”
Back came a response:
“The building at Gargrave Road was a larger footprint due to the need to construct the gross floor area which was 35,000ft sq whereas the area quoted below at Bellu Vue Mills is net, so this needs to be taken into account when comparing costs.”
The next time Paakwa moves home he’d better check if the floor sizes of the rooms are net or gross!
Or is this really saying that the outer walls occupy over 20% (35,000 minus 29,000) of the floor area of the proposed building? Perhaps 10 feet thick walls to keep out angry council tax payers?
And did CDC’s obliging advisor GVA Grimley mean net or gross in its specification?
Or are such answers meant to cloud the issue?
Continuing CDC’s shabby evasion of the truth ...
“Costs for the Gargrave Road site were based on actual tenders which were undertaken through the OJEU or based on quantity surveyor estimates checked by our in-house building surveyor prior to going to tender (some did not get as far as the tendering stage). However quantity surveyor estimates, whilst just that, do tend to be relatively reflective of a tender price.”
And CRAG’s reply:
“You write:
“The figure quoted by Councillor Firth was the total cost involved with the site and not just construction costs, which were put together for each option when Members made their decision so that the overall costs could be considered.”
I understand that there are construction costs, and I understand that there are total costs following infrastructure – drainage etc. but not, of course, land costs, as the land is council owned, but what exactly does this mean?
What costs were put together?
Please also supply copies of tenders, redacted if necessary, although as the tenders were refused it is hard to see what could remain confidential;
Please also supply copies of quantity surveyor estimates;
In addition:
Please let me know whether the alternative possibility of the HML building in the centre of Skipton which has – or so I am informed – a greater area, more car parking, is more accessible, freehold, and considerably cheaper by a very large margin in the asking price, was considered;
Pleased also let me know the annual service charges for Belle Vue Mills.
I realise that these questions may consume some time, but I am sure that you can see the need to challenge the council’s decision to spend over £4 million in direct contravention to council’s earlier decisions that the new offices must be freehold and based at Gargrave Road need questioning – this is a great deal of public money, indeed more than the annual amount paid by council taxpayers, and as we have seen untruths published regarding the state of Granville Street building it is only reasonable to question further into this matter; as I wrote, £3,000/sq.mtr is a colossal price for a leasehold building, even taking into account the costs of fitting out.”
“The figure quoted by Councillor Firth was the total cost involved with the site and not just construction costs, which were put together for each option when Members made their decision so that the overall costs could be considered.”
I understand that there are construction costs, and I understand that there are total costs following infrastructure – drainage etc. but not, of course, land costs, as the land is council owned, but what exactly does this mean?
What costs were put together?
Please also supply copies of tenders, redacted if necessary, although as the tenders were refused it is hard to see what could remain confidential;
Please also supply copies of quantity surveyor estimates;
In addition:
Please let me know whether the alternative possibility of the HML building in the centre of Skipton which has – or so I am informed – a greater area, more car parking, is more accessible, freehold, and considerably cheaper by a very large margin in the asking price, was considered;
Pleased also let me know the annual service charges for Belle Vue Mills.
I realise that these questions may consume some time, but I am sure that you can see the need to challenge the council’s decision to spend over £4 million in direct contravention to council’s earlier decisions that the new offices must be freehold and based at Gargrave Road need questioning – this is a great deal of public money, indeed more than the annual amount paid by council taxpayers, and as we have seen untruths published regarding the state of Granville Street building it is only reasonable to question further into this matter; as I wrote, £3,000/sq.mtr is a colossal price for a leasehold building, even taking into account the costs of fitting out.”
A response is awaited, and will be published when available.
Next Chapter: The cost of moving into Belle Vue Mills, how the council is funding it, and what happened to some councillors opposing this move.