Whitehaven Golf Course
There have been a number of questions asked and concerns raised in comments on this blog about the sale by Copeland Council of Whitehaven Golf Course, which took place before I was elected to the council.
There are also some issues about planning matters relating to the site and particularly the footpath diversion.
The District Auditor is investigating a complaint about the arrangements for the sale, and it would not be appropriate for me to make a final judgement on the matter until the report into that investigation is published. However, I have had some lengthy conversations with senior officers of the council and with councillors about the sale, and I think it is right to put on record that
1) I am assured that all documents which the District Auditor asked to see, including the valuation of the site, have been made available to the Auditor.
2) The bidder for the freehold of the site already held a 125 year lease of the site which had 120 years left to run. In this circumstance the professional valuation advice given to the council was that it was reasonable to expect that the freehold would be worth more to the leaseholder than to any other potential bidder.
3) The freehold of the land was not sold for less than the independent valuation.
I will comment further when I have some more information about the planning situation and when the District Auditor's report is published.
There are also some issues about planning matters relating to the site and particularly the footpath diversion.
The District Auditor is investigating a complaint about the arrangements for the sale, and it would not be appropriate for me to make a final judgement on the matter until the report into that investigation is published. However, I have had some lengthy conversations with senior officers of the council and with councillors about the sale, and I think it is right to put on record that
1) I am assured that all documents which the District Auditor asked to see, including the valuation of the site, have been made available to the Auditor.
2) The bidder for the freehold of the site already held a 125 year lease of the site which had 120 years left to run. In this circumstance the professional valuation advice given to the council was that it was reasonable to expect that the freehold would be worth more to the leaseholder than to any other potential bidder.
3) The freehold of the land was not sold for less than the independent valuation.
I will comment further when I have some more information about the planning situation and when the District Auditor's report is published.
Comments
2. The Leaseholder is not the company that bought the Golf Course, look at the Contract of Sale. It was sold to a company that has Copeland BC’s former Director of Planning and Services working for them as a Consultant.
3. If the land was not sold for less than the valuation, why does the Council refuse to make the valuations (there should be more than one) available for public scrutiny?
Then there is the issue of Copeland BC’s litigation with the Coal Board in which they extracted £500,000 to put the Golf Course in order. The Course was put in order, operated for a number of years, then sold for £235,000.
I don’t believe that is Best Value.
A comparison of the valuations used for the Litigation and the Sale would be most informative, I believe the District Auditor is following this line of inquiry.
Until the Council supply the District Auditor with ALL the necessary information then he will not “have sufficient material documentation and explanation to form a provisional view”, let alone a final view.
1. You allege that the officers have failed to supply the auditor with all the information needed. If that were true it would be a serious matter, but the officers assure me that they have in fact supplied the auditor with everything asked for.
Where do the words in quotation marks come from, and at what date?
If Copeland Council's officers were to fail to fully co-operate with the Auditor, there would be serious repercussions including a reference to such failure of co-operation in the Auditor's report. Until and unless I see such a comment in the Auditor's report, I shall not be jumping to any conclusions.
2. The fact that the party who originally bought the lease then assigned it to another party is not relevant. The company who had acquired the lease then also bought the freehold. The professional advice given to the council was that the land was worth more to the company which by then owned the lease than to any other potential purchaser. And speaking as a professional economist, I find that advice to be reasonable.
3. The officers have explained to me, in confidence, why they believe it would not be in the public interest to publish the valuation. To break that confidence would be a breach of the national code of local government conduct, by which I undertook to abide when I was elected. But I am allowed to say that the freehold was not sold for less than the valuation.
If there was a valuation associated with the litigation against the coal board twenty years ago - and I have not been able to discover one - it would have been so outdated by 2006 as not to be much use as a guide to the current value of land.
2. Are you saying the Council can sell whatever they want to whoever they want without it being put on the open market, and without ensuring they achieve Best Value? Whatever happened to letting the Market decide the value?
3. You keep using the word valuation – singular.
There should have been at least two valuations, one by the Councils own valuer and one by an Independent valuer. As it stands the Council only sought one valuation, that I assume was made by Lynn Miller of Capita Symonds..
Chris the Council owned the land, extracted £500,00 out of the Coal Board to invest in the Course, then sold the lot with all the planning permissions for £235,000.
I am not an economist Chris but I can do simple addition and subtraction. In my book this Sale smacks of financial incompetence, it certainly isn’t Best Value.
1) From what document is this quote taken ? Is it specifically relevant to the Golf Course?
I ask this question because the auditor has been expressing concerns about Copeland Council's management on a number of issues which have nothing to do with the Golf Course.
This is partly in the public domain because one of my colleagues referred to some of these concerns in a speech on the budget. The full details are likely to be made public in the near future and will not make comfortable reading.
2) No they can't and no they didn't. They sold it to a company to whom it was likely to be worth much more than anyone else.
3) There was one independent valuation, which the council's professional advisers thought reasonable.
As I understand it the money from the coal board was for restoration work, not to invest in a golf course which was not thought of until much later.
If the auditor were to uphold any of the complaints which have been made against the council on this issue I would of course expect significant corrective action.
The same would apply if the Auditor severely criticises the council on any of the other issues which he is looking at - and it is possible that there may be some rather more serious concerns elsewhere than any criticisms which are likely to be made over the Golf Course
"I am continuing to obtain and consider all the information which I require to enable me to from a provisional view. …. I will contact you as soon as I have sufficient material documentation and explanation to form a provisional view” - District Auditor.
It looks like Copeland BC are still being unhelpful in providing the Accounts and related documentation regarding the NEGLIGENT SALE of Whitehaven Golf Course to allow the District Auditor to do his job.
I have read the words you quote four times and cannot see that they support the conclusion you draw from them.
At the time I asked the officers about the information they had supplied to the District Auditor, I was told that he had one more interview to do.
Judging by some of the comments he has made on other aspects of the council's affairs - which look to me to indicate a far worse problem than the Golf course - I don't think he would hesitate to be far clearer if he were meeting obstruction or lack of co-operation.
Far worse than what looks like corruption?
Mark Warbrick
Mountain View