Democracy in Action

Environment and Community Overview Scrutiny Meeting 25/10/06

The meeting to review the decision was held on 25/10/06 at the request of Labour Councillor Jane Baugh and was an eye opener to say the least! 

The Committee has nine members: 5 Conservative councillors; 3 Labour; and one Liberal Democrat.  Unfortunately one of the Conservatives, Councillor Houraghan, was unable to attend, possibly owing to embarrassment over a comment that she now denies ever having made, leaving the committee evenly split between Conservative and non-Conservative with the chair, Councillor Pearson having the casting vote.

Councillor Poole, in her role as executive member of the Public Executive, responsible for Planning, Property and Prosperity was there to defend the decision to sell Watling Gate, supported by officers from Estates and Legal Services. Interestingly, Councillor Poole is the Conservative councillor for Bowden.  Nobody from the Parks and Countryside Service was present.

Interested members of the public did, however, attend, and were invited to give their statements at the beginning of the meeting.  This had the unfortunate effect of ensuring that they could not subsequently address some of the misstatements made by officers and councillors.

Jane Baugh opened with a number of questions, none of which were satisfactorily answered.  Labour and Liberal Democrat committee members then took over.  As a result of all their valiant efforts (for which, many thanks!) a number of facts quickly became evident:

• The decision to sell Watling Gate was made solely on the basis of the report submitted by Estates Officers;
• Councillors had not seen a copy of Colonel Newton’s will although they were aware of the terms;
• Councillors had not even looked at the letters of objection, let alone addressed the concerns raised.
• None of the councillors had looked at a map of the Park to see how the sale of the land adjacent to Watling Gate affected it;
• Councillors were unsure as to the location of the disputed link between Leys Road and Banbury Drive;
• Nobody had asked about parking despite the fact that the plans give no indication as to how car users visiting the centre will be accommodated, implying that a car park could be built on green space;
• Nobody had considered what covenants would need to be in place to protect the land from subsequent sale and development, should the building be found to be beyond economic repair and demolished, assuming that this would be done as part of the normal sale process - This in spite of the fact that the developer's own survey had found the building to be in a worse state of repair than previously thought;
• Nobody had considered what would happen if, for whatever reason (bankruptcy for example), the developer walked away from the project and the building was left empty.  This in spite of the fact that the reason given by the developer for his reduced offer was an amended business plan – required because of the withdrawal of a number of tenants;
• Nobody had questioned the fact that two different reports gave two different reasons for the developer’s reduced offer;
• Nobody had asked whether, given that the developer had reduced it by £150,000, his bid was still the best one (it was not):  This, in spite of the fact that the officers’ own report stated that the council was under a legal obligation to obtain the best possible capital receipt; and 
• Officers had never considered any option other than the sale of Watling Gate to obtain the highest possible capital receipt, although the Charities Act does indeed allow them to give it away free and gratis.

At this point the Vice Chair, Councillor Quayle, proposed that the decision should be taken back for scrutiny on three grounds: That

• Members had had insufficient information when making their decision 
  The vote was tied 4:4 with Councillor Pearson having the deciding vote.  She, in the manner of Pilate, asked what more information they could possibly have needed and voted against recall.

• The reduced bid required a new re-tendering exercise be undertaken
  Officers stated that, using a strict legal interpretation, they were not required to undertake a re-tendering exercise.  Again the vote was split 4:4 with Councillor Pearson deciding against recall.

• Given the terms of Colonel Newton’s will, which left the building to the people of Trafford, other options should have been considered
  After a heated debate, during which it transpired that Mr. D. Eatock, the Chair of the Friends of Newton Park had written to the Council in April 2005 suggesting that Watling Gate be leased to a Charitable Trust which could then raise funds for its restoration and community use, Councillor Poole offered to take back the decision on a technicality, to give officers longer than the standard 5 days to reply.  She did make it clear, though, that, without wishing to pre-empt the Executive, it was unlikely that a different decision would be reached!