30 March 2010
26 March 2010
A lawyer wrote..........
Some people are rather quick to call their lawyers, as the letters reproduced below illustrate. The downside of sending out lawyer's letters is that it can, quite inadvertently, draw attention to other matters and that was the case with regard to this exchange. Here is the original letter:
The lawyer's letter was a rather heavy-handed response to a comment posted on M&B which related to Purchase's business interests and which was, factually, inaccurate. The inaccuracy (repeated on three credit check sites) was confirmed and a correction was published but that, quite clearly, wasn't good enough, so the lawyers got a call. Unfortunately for the lawyers, Merrigan got into the act first and did a lot more harm than good, as you can see from my reply:
Of course, you can imagine that the lawyers failed to explain the relationship between Purchase, Merrigan and 'Canvin' but the impact of the visit from 'Raging Bull' and then the lawyer's letter caused me to do some digging. Who was this mysterious 'Canvin' and what was their relationship to Purchase and Merrigan? Well, the Land Registry at Weymouth held the answers. The document below shows that Purchase purchased a piece of land at Badgers Cross:
Later, Purchase carved a chunk out of their original purchase and sold the larger part on to none other than our very own Anthony Henry Canvin:
This purchase by Canvin from Purchase of part of Purchase's previous purchase formed the basis of Anthony Henry's ill-fated Badger's Cross Household Waste Recycling Centre project and is quite informative with regard to the forward planing that went into that project. These documents also clearly confirm the relationship between Purchase and 'Canvin' that the lawyers failed to clarify. And then, of course there is the little matter of whether or not ex-Local and current District Councillor A H Canvin registered this land interest in the Register of Member's Interests at SSDC. You won't be surprised to learn that the answer was 'No'. Had he done so, the residents at Badger's Cross might have been given some prior warning of what was afoot but it would seem that District Councillors don't feel obliged to inform their electorate when they initiate a 'conflict of interests'. After all, who cares about the voters?
Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
The lawyer's letter was a rather heavy-handed response to a comment posted on M&B which related to Purchase's business interests and which was, factually, inaccurate. The inaccuracy (repeated on three credit check sites) was confirmed and a correction was published but that, quite clearly, wasn't good enough, so the lawyers got a call. Unfortunately for the lawyers, Merrigan got into the act first and did a lot more harm than good, as you can see from my reply:
Of course, you can imagine that the lawyers failed to explain the relationship between Purchase, Merrigan and 'Canvin' but the impact of the visit from 'Raging Bull' and then the lawyer's letter caused me to do some digging. Who was this mysterious 'Canvin' and what was their relationship to Purchase and Merrigan? Well, the Land Registry at Weymouth held the answers. The document below shows that Purchase purchased a piece of land at Badgers Cross:
Later, Purchase carved a chunk out of their original purchase and sold the larger part on to none other than our very own Anthony Henry Canvin:
This purchase by Canvin from Purchase of part of Purchase's previous purchase formed the basis of Anthony Henry's ill-fated Badger's Cross Household Waste Recycling Centre project and is quite informative with regard to the forward planing that went into that project. These documents also clearly confirm the relationship between Purchase and 'Canvin' that the lawyers failed to clarify. And then, of course there is the little matter of whether or not ex-Local and current District Councillor A H Canvin registered this land interest in the Register of Member's Interests at SSDC. You won't be surprised to learn that the answer was 'No'. Had he done so, the residents at Badger's Cross might have been given some prior warning of what was afoot but it would seem that District Councillors don't feel obliged to inform their electorate when they initiate a 'conflict of interests'. After all, who cares about the voters?
Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
23 March 2010
Declare, resign or ignore?
"In all of this what's really required is changes in behaviour, it requires a culture in which the principles of public life, selflessness, integrity and so on, are embedded in the behaviour of those who hold public office." - Sir Christopher Kelly, 23rd March 2010, commenting on the Lobbygate scandal.
The issue over whether or not a Local or District Councillor should register their interests has been rumbling along, nationally, for quite some time. The Telegraph publish a short piece about the issue in June 2002 and you can read it here.
In the case reported by the Telegraph, the councillors in question resigned over the introduction of a 'Model Code of Conduct' which required them to declare any financial interests(also see here). The former Chair of West llsley Parish Council explained that members resigned because they were: unpaid; had little influence and that the Council was terribly small. At the time of publishing the article, the National Association of Local Councils stated that only 6,000 of 10,000 councils in England & Wales had signed up to the legislation. But recent events in Somerton have shown that, even if a Council does sign up to the legislation, that doesn't mean that members will declare their interests.
Somerton Town Council's 'register of member's interests' (under the old Somerton Town Council) was a blank sheet of paper and enquiries at South Somerset District Council show that ex-Local and current District Councillor A H Canvin continues not to disclose his own interests. In a recent discussion at SSDC, I also learned that a District Council is dependent upon the honesty of members in order to regulate their Register. If a Member declares 'no interests' then the District Council must assume that the declaration is truthful and honest. There is also no mechanism whereby a Council can easily check if the Member's declaration is truthful and honest. Finally, the penalties which can be applied to any recognised failure to disclose are applied by fellow Councillors who, themselves, may be failing to disclose. So what exists could be described as a self-regulating culture of non-disclosure.
But why should this matter? Well, contrary to the view of the ex-Chair of West Ilsley Parish Council, Local Councillors can have significant influence in issues like local development frameworks. Such mechanisms can significantly influence the value of land and so the input of a Local Councillor can be far from insignificant. If land is designated as being for 'agricultural use' then its value will be anywhere between £2,000 and £5,000 per acre. If the same land is designated as being for 'industrial use' , then the value climbs to anywhere between £50,000 and £200,000 an acre. Finally, if the same land gains a 'residential use' then the sky is the limit. Its therefore easy to see that if a councillor (Local, District or County) were to have development business interests or land ownership interests then their views or their lobbying could be subject to 'influence' exerted by those interests.
It is also worth considering that Councillors do have access to discussions, policy documents and strategic decision making at various levels of Local Government which can confer advantage if the information is mis-used. Sadly, a Register of Member's Interests will not guarantee that Members behave 'properly'. What it would do, if it was effective, would be to offer the electorate another level of transparency whereby they might assure themselves that a Member does not have direct interests which might influence their actions.
Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
The issue over whether or not a Local or District Councillor should register their interests has been rumbling along, nationally, for quite some time. The Telegraph publish a short piece about the issue in June 2002 and you can read it here.
In the case reported by the Telegraph, the councillors in question resigned over the introduction of a 'Model Code of Conduct' which required them to declare any financial interests(also see here). The former Chair of West llsley Parish Council explained that members resigned because they were: unpaid; had little influence and that the Council was terribly small. At the time of publishing the article, the National Association of Local Councils stated that only 6,000 of 10,000 councils in England & Wales had signed up to the legislation. But recent events in Somerton have shown that, even if a Council does sign up to the legislation, that doesn't mean that members will declare their interests.
Somerton Town Council's 'register of member's interests' (under the old Somerton Town Council) was a blank sheet of paper and enquiries at South Somerset District Council show that ex-Local and current District Councillor A H Canvin continues not to disclose his own interests. In a recent discussion at SSDC, I also learned that a District Council is dependent upon the honesty of members in order to regulate their Register. If a Member declares 'no interests' then the District Council must assume that the declaration is truthful and honest. There is also no mechanism whereby a Council can easily check if the Member's declaration is truthful and honest. Finally, the penalties which can be applied to any recognised failure to disclose are applied by fellow Councillors who, themselves, may be failing to disclose. So what exists could be described as a self-regulating culture of non-disclosure.
But why should this matter? Well, contrary to the view of the ex-Chair of West Ilsley Parish Council, Local Councillors can have significant influence in issues like local development frameworks. Such mechanisms can significantly influence the value of land and so the input of a Local Councillor can be far from insignificant. If land is designated as being for 'agricultural use' then its value will be anywhere between £2,000 and £5,000 per acre. If the same land is designated as being for 'industrial use' , then the value climbs to anywhere between £50,000 and £200,000 an acre. Finally, if the same land gains a 'residential use' then the sky is the limit. Its therefore easy to see that if a councillor (Local, District or County) were to have development business interests or land ownership interests then their views or their lobbying could be subject to 'influence' exerted by those interests.
It is also worth considering that Councillors do have access to discussions, policy documents and strategic decision making at various levels of Local Government which can confer advantage if the information is mis-used. Sadly, a Register of Member's Interests will not guarantee that Members behave 'properly'. What it would do, if it was effective, would be to offer the electorate another level of transparency whereby they might assure themselves that a Member does not have direct interests which might influence their actions.
Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
18 March 2010
How restrictive is your covenant?
Late last year I made a Freedom of Information enquiry of the Valuation Office in order to establish the basis on which they made their valuation of the Tin Dunny (at the request of Somerton Town Council) prior to it being bought by Somerton Town Council in September of 2008. The documentation provided to the Valuation Office by Somerton Town Council is remarkably sketchy and the result of this is that the Valuation Office's valuation is made with specific limitations. Reproduced below are three extracts from page 2 of the DV's report:
When you consider these statements, and if you know the facts behind them, you immediately see some problems. In the first extract the DV states that, with regard to restrictive covenants, there are none of which he knows (or of which he was informed). But the fact is that there are two restrictive covenants held over Unit 8 Cary Court - a dominant covenant held by the vendors of the site in 2001 (IG, GC and AJ Chant) and a secondary covenant held (but waived temporarily during Somerton Town Council's ownership) by Mr A H Canvin. Whilst the secondary covenant has been waived temporarily, the Council breached the dominant covenant by applying for 'change of use' and implementing that 'change of use'.
In the second extract, the DV assumes that the service roads are adopted public highways maintained at public expense but the fact is that the estate roads are not adopted and public highway but are, in fact, private and believed to be controlled by Mr A H Canvin.
In the third extract, the previous two points are covered again.
Then, on page 3 of the report, the Valuer states their assumptions about the nature of the transaction.
So, what is to be made of the 'valuation' itself? Well it is fair to propose that it is seriously flawed, not through any error on the part of the Valuer but because of the lack of disclosure on the part of Somerton Town Council. The valuation was requested by the Town Clerk, obviously on the instruction of the Council and, as (ex)Cllr Canvin was a part of that Council, it is fair to assume that he was part of that instruction. So, as he certainly authored the secondary covenant, did he not have a duty to disclose the existence of the two layers of covenants? Was his involvement in the creation of the secondary covenant and his position as a Local Councillor not a conflict?
The difficulty that the covenants present is that they preclude the use of the building in anything other than 'industrial or storage use' which certainly excludes the use of the building as a community hall. So it can be sold as an industrial or storage unit, but if it is, what happens to the plush bar, the dance floor, the stage etc etc? The investment that delivered the refurbishment of the building would clearly be at risk if not a total loss.
Then the is the matter of the nature of the transaction (the 4th extract). Was it made 'at arms length'? That is certainly questionable given the fact that the sale of the Etsome Terrace land was an integral part of the transaction to buy the Tin Dunny. Was there 'proper marketing'? Well, from my own knowledge of the facts, the Tin Dunny was never advertsied 'for sale' on the open market and (ex) Cllr Canvin brought the opportunity to the attention of the Council. Not quite my idea of 'proper marketing'.
Finally, did the parties act knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. I can't speak for the Edgar part of the transaction but it is my own view that, were the questions posed to the old Somerton Town Council, the answers would be 'No', 'No' and 'No'.
Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
When you consider these statements, and if you know the facts behind them, you immediately see some problems. In the first extract the DV states that, with regard to restrictive covenants, there are none of which he knows (or of which he was informed). But the fact is that there are two restrictive covenants held over Unit 8 Cary Court - a dominant covenant held by the vendors of the site in 2001 (IG, GC and AJ Chant) and a secondary covenant held (but waived temporarily during Somerton Town Council's ownership) by Mr A H Canvin. Whilst the secondary covenant has been waived temporarily, the Council breached the dominant covenant by applying for 'change of use' and implementing that 'change of use'.
In the second extract, the DV assumes that the service roads are adopted public highways maintained at public expense but the fact is that the estate roads are not adopted and public highway but are, in fact, private and believed to be controlled by Mr A H Canvin.
In the third extract, the previous two points are covered again.
Then, on page 3 of the report, the Valuer states their assumptions about the nature of the transaction.
So, what is to be made of the 'valuation' itself? Well it is fair to propose that it is seriously flawed, not through any error on the part of the Valuer but because of the lack of disclosure on the part of Somerton Town Council. The valuation was requested by the Town Clerk, obviously on the instruction of the Council and, as (ex)Cllr Canvin was a part of that Council, it is fair to assume that he was part of that instruction. So, as he certainly authored the secondary covenant, did he not have a duty to disclose the existence of the two layers of covenants? Was his involvement in the creation of the secondary covenant and his position as a Local Councillor not a conflict?
The difficulty that the covenants present is that they preclude the use of the building in anything other than 'industrial or storage use' which certainly excludes the use of the building as a community hall. So it can be sold as an industrial or storage unit, but if it is, what happens to the plush bar, the dance floor, the stage etc etc? The investment that delivered the refurbishment of the building would clearly be at risk if not a total loss.
Then the is the matter of the nature of the transaction (the 4th extract). Was it made 'at arms length'? That is certainly questionable given the fact that the sale of the Etsome Terrace land was an integral part of the transaction to buy the Tin Dunny. Was there 'proper marketing'? Well, from my own knowledge of the facts, the Tin Dunny was never advertsied 'for sale' on the open market and (ex) Cllr Canvin brought the opportunity to the attention of the Council. Not quite my idea of 'proper marketing'.
Finally, did the parties act knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. I can't speak for the Edgar part of the transaction but it is my own view that, were the questions posed to the old Somerton Town Council, the answers would be 'No', 'No' and 'No'.
Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
15 March 2010
Right to reply revisited
You may remember some time ago, mid 2009 I believe, that the Keenan/Canvin administration organised a public abuse session for me which (ex-Cllr) Keenan described as the then Town Council's 'right to reply'. It was an interesting experience with the highlight being (ex-Cllr) Martyn Smith's world famous 'bugger off' comment. I was reminded of that particular sad chapter when looking through more of the Town Council's records, recovered from the completely shambolic 'filing system'.
In August of 2008 and in a reaction to the news that the Keenan/Canvin regime was going to swap the land at Etsome Terrace for the unlovely 'Tin Dunny', I wrote to the Council asking a number of questions. These related to the asset swap and, specifically, how the sale of Etsome Terrace was arranged. Substantial public assets are generally sold by 'Public Tender' where they are advertised and bids received by a given deadline. I was unaware of any such process being followed by Somerton Town Council and I was anxious to know how the Council had 'solicited' the bids. (It has been suggested to me that certain members of the Council possessed little known telepathic powers but I long ago discounted this theory.)
As most people now know, under the Keenan/Canvin regime, awkward questions never received a response but, in my own case, there was an internal reaction to my enquiries, an officially instructed letter to Messers Porter Dodson, which is reproduced below.
This letter makes it quite clear that the Keenan/Canvin regime were entirely committed to maintaining a veil of secrecy across their activities, even to the extent of seeking lawyers to respond to awkward questions, and all at public expense.
My questions failed to receive an answer at that time but I now have some of the documentary evidence describing how the Keenan/Canvin administration conducted its business. I am informed that Messers Keenan & Canvin, in their official positions as Chair and Vice-Chair, ultimately instructed the Town Clerk not to reply to my enquiries. Obviously they felt that theirs was the only 'right to reply'.
Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
In August of 2008 and in a reaction to the news that the Keenan/Canvin regime was going to swap the land at Etsome Terrace for the unlovely 'Tin Dunny', I wrote to the Council asking a number of questions. These related to the asset swap and, specifically, how the sale of Etsome Terrace was arranged. Substantial public assets are generally sold by 'Public Tender' where they are advertised and bids received by a given deadline. I was unaware of any such process being followed by Somerton Town Council and I was anxious to know how the Council had 'solicited' the bids. (It has been suggested to me that certain members of the Council possessed little known telepathic powers but I long ago discounted this theory.)
As most people now know, under the Keenan/Canvin regime, awkward questions never received a response but, in my own case, there was an internal reaction to my enquiries, an officially instructed letter to Messers Porter Dodson, which is reproduced below.
This letter makes it quite clear that the Keenan/Canvin regime were entirely committed to maintaining a veil of secrecy across their activities, even to the extent of seeking lawyers to respond to awkward questions, and all at public expense.
My questions failed to receive an answer at that time but I now have some of the documentary evidence describing how the Keenan/Canvin administration conducted its business. I am informed that Messers Keenan & Canvin, in their official positions as Chair and Vice-Chair, ultimately instructed the Town Clerk not to reply to my enquiries. Obviously they felt that theirs was the only 'right to reply'.
Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
9 March 2010
Running with the hare...........
Earlier this year I published a couple of extracts from a letter which turned up in the records of Somerton Town Council. This was a critical essay about the activities of the Town Council and it was written, in 2005, by then Cllr Nancy Langmaid. In the essay it is clear that this Cllr wanted to have their cake and eat it in that the Cllr wanted to make the comments but wanted them to be kept 'confidential' and away from the public.
However, what this four page essay does show, at the very least, is that at least one councillor was thinking about the way that Somerton Town Council was being run. The question that this raises for me is why they didn't have the guts to stand up and be counted. Equally, did any other councillors have reservations? David Harrison claims to have harboured similar reservations but failed to act on them or, if he did, there is, as yet, no evidence of such action.
You can read the entire text of Cllr Langmaid's letter below and make your own mind up about the culture of Somerton Town Council under the Keenan/Canvin administration as described by this particular 'insider'.
However, what this four page essay does show, at the very least, is that at least one councillor was thinking about the way that Somerton Town Council was being run. The question that this raises for me is why they didn't have the guts to stand up and be counted. Equally, did any other councillors have reservations? David Harrison claims to have harboured similar reservations but failed to act on them or, if he did, there is, as yet, no evidence of such action.
You can read the entire text of Cllr Langmaid's letter below and make your own mind up about the culture of Somerton Town Council under the Keenan/Canvin administration as described by this particular 'insider'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)