Call In vs CPO

Here is the text of an email I received from Tim Pollard today:

"Dear Mr Frost

Apologies for the delay in replying to your email – it is a rather busy time of year…..

The £180,000 costs referred to in the Croydon Guardian report related to the costs that the Council incurred in relation to the Call-in Inquiry. It has long been public knowledge that the Council had to meet its own costs in relation to the Call-in Inquiry to maintain its independence and impartiality as Local Planning Authority.

The letter from Phillip Goodwin to Andrew Pelling MP was part of a chain of correspondence which related to the costs of the CPO Inquiry and the position in relation to those costs is as stated in that letter and the latest Council question dealing with the issue to which the Croydon Guardian advert is referring, i.e. the costs of the CPO Inquiry are being met by CCRLLP.

For your information, I attach a copy of that Council Question and the Answer given to it.

Regards

Cllr Tim Pollard"

Here is the text of the attachment that Tim sent:

"CQ504-07

from Councillor Avril Slipper

RE Could the Cabinet Member please tell me if he is aware of the cost of the Gateway Enquiry, and who is paying the bill?

Reply

The final cost to the Council of the Gateway public inquiry is likely to be in the region of £180,000, although I am unable to provide an exact cost at present because all invoices in relation to the inquiry have not yet been provided.

However, the majority of the cost of the inquiry is being met by Central Croydon Regeneration Limited Liability Partnership (CCRLLP), the partnership between Arrowcroft and Frogmore. CCRLLP is meeting the cost of presenting their case at the Call-in inquiry and is also meeting the total cost of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) inquiry, as under the terms of the Development Agreement the Council has with CCRLLP, the latter is obliged to pay all the Council’s CPO costs.

The Council needed its own QC, legal advice and consultants to present the Council’s case at the Call-in inquiry, which makes up the £180,000 figure referred to above."

I then asked Tim what the difference is between the "call in inquiry" and the "CPO inquiry". Here is his answer:

"Ken

The Inspector heard three separate Inquiries, back to back. One was the call in of the Planning Permission, one was for the CPO itself, and the last was for the stopping up of part of Lansdowne Road. At the call in, the evidence heard related to the technical planning aspects of the scheme and it is broadly similar to any other planning permission inquiry, albeit on a grander scale. It's outcome is the granting (or refusal) of Planning Permission.

The CPO Inquiry tests whether the Council is correct in its desire to CPO the land and evaluates the suggested public good against the requirements of the Circular which outlines the conditions required for a successful CPO. It's outcome is the confirmation (or not) of a CPO.

Although it was the same Inspector and many of the key witnesses and Counsel are the same, the two Inquiries are quite separate, hearing different evidence and were separated by a recess of one week. They could have been held months apart, but it suited all parties to conjoin them.

Cllr Tim Pollard"

So there we are, Croydon council have not incurred any costs re the CPO for the arena and the council is determined to maintain its independence and impartiality as a Local Planning Authority.

I would like to venture one very modest observation; had the council not backed the arena there would be no "call in inquiry", and hence the council would not have needed to spend £180K of our money on it.

How Very Curious

Now here is a very curious thing.

The Croydon Guardian reports that Croydon Council have incurred legal costs of £180K:

"After an eight-week inquiry into the Gateway scheme Croydon Council has been left with a bill of around £180,000.

This is just the costs the council has to cover, which pays for its legal advice."

Looks like we're going to need a few payday loans!

Why is it then that Phillip Goodwin, Croydon Council's Director of Planning and Transportation, wrote to Andrew Pelling on 30 January 2007 and told him:

"Almost all of the Gateway CPO costs will be 'direct' and therefore the responsibility of Arrowcroft...

The only costs the Council has to meet are ongoing internal staffing costs..."

How very curious!

Why would he say that then?

I have emailed Councillor Tim Pollard, cabinet member for finance, asking him to explain why Croydon council said that there would be no costs of this nature.

Copy of Goodwin's letter:

Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition

Wakey Wakey Tim!

Oh dear, according to the Croydon Guardian, it would seem that the arena inquiry simply isn't stimulating enough for Councillor Tim Pollard:

"Councillor Tim Pollard, the town hall's cabinet member for finance and regeneration, arrived at the inquiry bright eyed and bushy tailed last Wednesday but within half an hour his eyes began rolling and soon his head was slumped on to his chest.

Despite this being one of the most important issues the council has had to face since it won the election last year, it seems it was not exciting enough to keep Coun Pollard awake."

Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition

Reputations

Tim Pollard wrote back to me re my mail sent yesterday, saying that "all enquiries about the evidence base are being dealt with by Donaldsons on the Council's behalf. I have sent your email on to them and they will respond to you direct."

I sent him the following reply this morning:

"Tim

Thank you for your response, I look forward to reading Donaldsons' reply.

One more query for you and the council, rather than Donaldsons. Regarding Gerald Kaufman's assessment of Arrowcroft in 1999, as referenced on the CATARENA site:

'I shall talk about the conduct of people in Arrowcroft, in North West Water and in other firms. I am sorry to say that their conduct involves lies, concealment, deception, double dealing, proposed blackmail, proposed bribery and attempts to manipulate Members of Parliament.'

Also:

'Arrowcroft is the property partner of United Utilities, an enormous organisation, which owns both North West Water and the North Western electricity board, Norweb. It is therefore curious that Arrowcroft is not a public company and that all its shares are held by very few people.

A list of shareholders shows an Alan Jones and, a little further down, a Catherine Leslie Jones; they live together and have 35,000 shares between them. The list of shareholders also shows a Bankim Chand Gossai and, further down, an Umeshwatie Devi Gossai; they, too, share an address. Then, we have Barbara Priscilla Eppel, who owns 440,000 shares; Leonard Cedric Eppel, who is chairman of the company and owns 600,000 shares; and Stuart Neil Eppel, who owns 330,000 shares; other members of the Eppel family are also shareholders. Nicholas Paul Hai and Rochelle Eleanor Hai own more than 360,000 shares between them.

One short list comprises the names of all the shareholders in the property company of one of the biggest companies in the country--it is a family company, and the relationship between the two companies is baffling, to say the least.

However, it is clear that they are not a very successful family. While the property company registered a profit of £501,472 in 1997, in 1998--these accounts were published last month--it made a loss of £192,531.

On the other hand, the family certainly know how to look after themselves. In 1997, directors' emoluments were £487,204 and, in 1998, they increased to £605,939. The emoluments of the highest-paid director increased in one year from £119,679 to £194,353. The House may agree that certain fishy matters should be investigated.'

Are you and the council comfortable to have your names associated with, and to have entered into an agreement with, a company whose conduct according to Gerald Kaufman involves 'lies, concealment, deception, double dealing, proposed blackmail, proposed bribery and attempts to manipulate Members of Parliament'?

Thanks for your help.

Kind regards

Ken Frost

Croydon Against The Arena"

Termination of Agreement

Text of email sent to Councillor Tim Pollard today:

"Tim

Buried within the mountain of documents relating to the proposed arena development, championed by some members of the council and Arrowcroft, is this statement:

'The council and Arrowcroft have the right to terminate the Agreement in certain circumstances.'

Source: Appendices to proof of evidence of Alan Jones (page 8 para 4)

Please can you advise me as to what those circumstances are?

Thank you.

Kind regards

Ken Frost

Croydon Against The Arena

www.catarena.org"

Carry On Regardless

I am pleased to see that Stanhope intend to start work on the Gateway site later this year, thereby sticking a metaphorical two fingers up at the council's compulsory purchase order (CPO).

According to the Croydon Guardian, Stanhope will start work as soon as minor conditions are approved by the council.

Charles Walford from Stanhope Plc said:

"However we have everything we need to start - we own the land, we have finance, we have occupier interest and we have planning permission granted from the council."

Rather amusingly, Councillor Tim Pollard, cabinet member for finance and regeneration whined:

"The council has always tried to have constructive dialogue with both Stanhope and Schroder and Arrowcroft but Stanhope seem determined to hold us back."

Can this be same the same council that doesn't want Stanhpope to build on the land?

Is this not the same council that has signed a contract with rival developer Arrowcroft?

Is this not the same council that is trying to impose a CPO on Stanhope's legitimate ownership of the land?

Is this not the same council (albeit under the guise of a Labour administration) that are referred to in the minutes of the Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions (1 November 2004). Where it was made very clear that the committee believed that the then Labour administration had a conflict of interest?

Quote:

The minutes also note that the then Labour administration made the dispute between themselves and Stanhope personal. Sir Paul Beresford is quoted as saying:

"I just happen to have been given the Croydon Gateway report that you gave to your Labour group. It is quite abusive, it is personally abusive. I find it quite extraordinary...

It is the report that went to the Labour group on 5 February this year and it says:

'These so-called blue-chip developers have acted like irritable children when their toy has been snatched from them, whining and screaming to the press and anyone else who will listen.' Then it goes on to name a number of individuals, including Sir Stuart, but naming him with a rather abusive phrase, which I will not use, and others that have resisted or not agreed with you also get abusive names applied to them?..

Calling one of the individuals, that I have not named, 'Mr Slime' and another one 'Mr Dud'..

You are in a position where, certainly by the paper, you have got some personal difficulties with individuals, you want an Arena on the schemes and really you want Arrowcroft to do the development, so that, in essence, anyone else putting in an application, including the people that own the land, is wasting their time?.."

Therefore how can Councillor Pollard claim that the council have tried to have a "constructive" dialogue with Stanhope?

The council have done their very best to block Stanhope, and to remove them from the site and public consciousness.

Good luck to Stanhope, by commencing work on the site they will all but nullify the absurd CPO and stick a very well deserved two fingers up to the council who have failed the citizens of Croydon.

Let us develop the site now, and build a better brighter future for Croydon (with or without the council).

The CPO Objection Letter

Here is the text of the letter that I sent 3rd February to Ruth Kelly, laying out my objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the Gateway site:

"Dear Ms Kelly,

Subject Compulsory Purchase of the Gateway Site Croydon Served 16 January 2007

I wish to formally object to Croydon Council’s proposed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the Gateway development near East Croydon Station.

Please note that I am a long term resident of Croydon, and have no commercial interest or links with the proposed development or rival developers.

I have for the last three years been running www.croydoniscrap.com which highlights the ongoing decay and squalor that is eroding the heart of Croydon, in the hope of shaming those responsible to address the problem.

Dingwall Road in Croydon is without a doubt one of the most shameful areas within Croydon’s town centre. It is one of the main thoroughfares leading to East Croydon station and is used by commuters, visitors and residents on their way to and from the station.

However, instead of being a thriving and bustling thoroughfare of commerce, industry and residential properties; its “piss poor” derelict appearance has more similarity to the devastation following a nuclear attack, rather than the main thoroughfare of what is meant to be one of London's more prestigious outer boroughs.

There have been plans for the redevelopment of this site (known as the Gateway) for many years now. Unfortunately the two competing developers (Arrowcroft and Stanhope Schroders) have two rival plans. Arrowcroft want to include in their development an arena, this is the plan currently favoured by both the previous Labour council and the new Tory administration. Stanhope Schroders do not have plans for an arena, but do actually own a large part of the land on which the Gateway project would be constructed.

As such there is now a protracted legal battle (see Legal Battle) between the council and Arrowcroft on one side, and Stanhope Schroders on the other.

Needless to say the long suffering residents of Croydon, who have to endure the squalor and danger of walking down this scrofulous tumour on Croydon’s backside, have to wait whilst the legal teams fight it out.

In October 2006 Croydon Council’s Cabinet member for Finance and Regeneration, Tim Pollard, published a Cabinet Member’s Bulletin, which summarised a visit that he made to Hamburg to see an arena exactly the same as that proposed by Arrowcroft for the Gateway Site.

On the face of it the report shows that Pollard is enthusiastic about the arena. However, read the report closely and you will see that all is not well:

· The arena in Hamburg is not in the city centre, as such the large influx of people who attend sporting events and pop concerts do not disrupt the daily lives of the residents or commercial activities of Hamburg. Croydon’s arena would cause disruption.

· The Hamburg arena, as per Pollard, has an “uninspiring exterior”, ie it is ugly. He notes that it would have to look a lot better, if it were to be placed in a city centre such as Croydon.

· Most of the visitors to the Hamburg arena come by car. Yet those coming to the Croydon arena would be expected to endure the misery of public transport, thus displacing and inconveniencing those who currently live, commute and shop in Croydon.

· In another part of Pollard's report he notes:

“It has long been recognised that East Croydon Station needs to be redeveloped as it is reaching capacity at peak times. This is likely to be exacerbated by the new developments which are about to start in the town centre. Network Rail expects to release a development brief shortly and is keen to work jointly with Croydon Council to procure a development partner.”

In other words, East Croydon station will not be able to cope with the increase in numbers brought about by the arena. To trust Network Rail and the council to find an, as yet, undiscovered solution to this problem is taking far too great a leap of faith.

· The location of the Hamburg arena (outside the city and away from bars), and the fact that visitors come by car meant that those using the facilities were sober and well behaved. Given the fact that there are a large number of bars and clubs in Croydon, and the fact that visitors would not be driving it is reasonable to assume that those coming to the Croydon arena would be considerably less well behaved.

I detect, from the tone of the report, a sense of doubt about the project creeping into Pollard's mind. There are too many “ifs” for my liking.

I would note that Croydon Council own none of the land, but the previous administration signed with Arrowcroft and committed to the scheme some years ago. Councillor Pollard notes that the Council have a legally binding contract with Arrowcroft (source

Contract)

This more than lilkely means that if the deal with Arrowcroft fails, there may be penalties imposed on Croydon. I note the following:

· Croydon is effectively bankrupt

· Croydon cannot afford the penalties, if they arise

· The current administration quite clearly do not like the arena project. However, the decision to go ahead is most likely being based on the fear of penalties rather than the benefits (of which there are none) of having an arena.

Clearly the decision to impose a CPO is flawed, and has been taken for the wrong reasons.

William Hill, Head of Property at Schroders said:

“I do not know whether to laugh or cry. This must be a first. A CPO brought by a Council to stop the immediate regeneration of derelict land by a willing, able and fully funded developer with construction scheduled to start in a matter of weeks.”

David Camp, chief executive of Stanhope, said:

“As baffling as this all may seem, the benefit of the CPO starting is at long last the Arrowcroft arena proposals will be subject to some impartial and proper scrutiny.”

“Over five years on from the submission of the arena scheme for planning we still do not know who the arena operator is, where the funding for the scheme is coming from and the basis of the viability assessment carried out.”

I would also remind you that the Secretary of State granted permission to Stanhope and Schroders’s scheme in the high court. I draw your attention to the minutes of the Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions (1 November 2004). Where it was made very clear that the committee believed that the then Labour administration had a conflict of interest.

The minutes also note that the then Labour administration made the dispute between themselves and Stanhope personal. Sir Paul Beresford is quoted as saying:

“I just happen to have been given the Croydon Gateway report that you gave to your Labour group. It is quite abusive, it is personally abusive. I find it quite extraordinary...

It is the report that went to the Labour group on 5 February this year and it says: "These so-called blue-chip developers have acted like irritable children when their toy has been snatched from them, whining and screaming to the press and anyone else who will listen." Then it goes on to name a number of individuals, including Sir Stuart, but naming him with a rather abusive phrase, which I will not use, and others that have resisted or not agreed with you also get abusive names applied to them?..


Calling one of the individuals, that I have not named, ‘Mr Slime’ and another one ‘Mr Dud’..

You are in a position where, certainly by the paper, you have got some personal difficulties with individuals, you want an Arena on the schemes and really you want Arrowcroft to do the development, so that, in essence, anyone else putting in an application, including the people that own the land, is wasting their time?..”

Source:

Parliament

It is clear that the then Labour administration had no intention of viewing any other scheme impartially. Therefore the scheme, and related CPO, is flawed and should be blocked.

My recommendations are as follows:

· The residents of Croydon do not want or need an arena. Therefore the arena should be ditched.

· The residents of Croydon want Dingwall Road to be developed as speedily and as decently as possible. Go for the plan that can be started as quickly as possible.

· The council must stop wasting time on legal battles with Stanhope Schroder, simply because their development does not have an arena.

Get the site redeveloped now!

Abandon the CPO and the flawed Arrowcroft proposal.

We, the residents of Croydon, are fed up with the ongoing delays and empty promises of the council.

I would also note that Andrew Pelling MP (Croydon Central) has written to me, with his support.

To read Councillor Pollard’s report visit this link:

Pollard

Take a virtual walk down Dingwall Road via this link:

Dingwall Road

Please feel free to contact me if you need further details.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM"