https://cmis.sandwell.gov.uk/Cmis5/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=W5a%2bDEOh17SySGwe22hVzaaNgDcHi0d3pRmv8T8KP79QXTjz9uwJqA%3d%3d&rUzwRPf%2bZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3d%3d=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2fLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3d%3d&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&kCx1AnS9%2fpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2bAJvYtyA%3d%3d=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&FgPlIEJYlotS%2bYGoBi5olA%3d%3d=NHdURQburHA%3d&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3d
Report para 3.2: In 2012 an informal meeting was held with a developer who was interested in taking forward a proposal to create a high-end retail development and had identified a possible location [ie Lion Farm Fields].
Question: Where did the informal meeting meeting take place, on what date did it happen and who was there? Why was the meeting not minuted? Who made the decision not to minute the meeting?
(We do know from the Wragge Report that disgraced Councillor Mahboob Hussain introduced the developer to the Council after Knight Adams had bought a property off Hussain's son for nearly half a million pounds.)
Report para 3.2: Further meetings took place and the outcome was that the decision was made to progress potential options to develop the Lion Farm Playing Fields as a designer retail village akin to the retail developments of Bicester Village in Oxfordshire and the Cheshire Oaks retail development in the North West.
Question: Where and when did the "further meetings" take place? List each and every meeting with a further list of attendees. Who, exactly, made the decision to "progress the options"?
Report para 3.3: On 19th December, 2012, a confidential report "Junction 2 Development" recommending a 12 month development option (with authority given to the Area Director - Regeneration and Economy, to extend for a further 12 months) was approved by the Asset Management Land Disposal (AMLD) Cabinet Committee.
Question: Why was the report "confidential" in the first place? Why was it called "Junction 2 Development" when it is no such thing? Why was the report not released for over five years ie until disclosure was forced by me on 15th February, 2018? Was this confidential report made available to and considered by all Cabinet members who agreed to proceed with this bent deal on 15th November, 2017? Was the report made available to and considered by all Councillors who waived the bent deal through at full Council on 16th January, 2018. If yes to the last two questions, why was the report not listed in the agendas for either meeting? Why did SMBC keep the report secret from the public until three weeks after the vital Council meeting?
(This was the infamous meeting where only Hussain and Hackett were present and got through a full agenda in just seven meetings. Hussain failed to declare his previous dealings with the developer. In the same meeting SMBC agreed to sell off the old Coroner's Court in Smethwick which was then sold to Hussain's son. In paragraph 3.2 of the Report under consideration the Audit Manager blithely says that as two Councillors were present the meeting was quorate but if Hussain had declared his interest he would not have been able to participate in the decision and thus the meeting would NOT have been quorate! Thus the original Cabinet Committee decision was unlawful.)
Report para 3.5: The decision to progress with the option agreement was received by Cabinet on 9th January 2013 and then included on the Full Council agenda on 5th March, 2013.
Comment: From the above the original decision was unlawful. I am not a lawyer and cannot say whether these subsequent decisions can provide legality. In any event the Cabinet meeting referred to - which included Cllrs Eling and Moore - got through a full agenda including this multi-million deal in just TWO minutes! (This is subject to an ongoing standards complaint.) There was no discussion in the TWO minute-long meeting of the multi-million pound deal which was simply nodded through. The full Council which nodded the illegal deal through included Cllrs Preece, Jaron and Piper who were in the Audit Committee last Thursday deciding what had gone wrong here! Councillors were not shown the original secret report on which Hussain and Hackett made the original - unlawful decision. How could they possibly make an informed decision? As it happens they got through a very lengthy agenda including weighty budget decisions in just TWENTY SEVEN minutes.
Report para 3.8 (very important): The execution of the option agreement as endorsed at Full Council (see above) was made by the Council's legal department on 21st May, 2013. The option provided for the freehold to be acquired by the developer should planning permission be secured for retail development.
Question: This is the first specific reference in six years to transfer of the freehold to Jeremy Knight Adams. Why does this contradict the Report to Cabinet of Dr Alison Knight and Cllr Paul Moore presented to Cabinet on 15th November, 2017 which specifically states: "when the development comes forward, ownership of the land would transfer from the Council to the developer either by sale of the freehold of long leasehold."? These are two very different things. Is SMBC saying Jeremy Knight Adams has given up an option to buy the freehold? If a new option is not agreed can JKA rely on the original option to force SMBC to convey the freehold to him if planning permission is granted? If so, what is the mechanism agreed in the option to assess the price payable, CIL/ s.106 payments etc?
Cllr Piper asked whether JKA could force the sale to him if planning permission was not agreed? There was no straight answer to this save to say that the economic reality is that JKA would no longer be interested in the land. But due to the restriction on sale or transfer of the land set out below SMBC cannot dispose of the land to anyone else (eg a trust of local people). Does the option specifically permit SMBC to apply automatically to HM Land Registry to lift the restriction in the event that planning permission is not granted? What if JKA never applies for planning permission (a possibility now the Cannock scheme has started) - is SMBC restrained forever from otherwise disposing of the land? What does the option say as to time limits?
The option was granted in May, 2013 but mysteriously not registered until 2017 by Jeremy Knight Adams. Sandwell Council consented to the registration of a restriction on at least four Land Registry titles relating to Lion Farm. The restriction (note especially the date) reads:
"(02/08/17) RESTRICTION: No disposition of part of the registered estate edged [various colours in the four different titles] on the title of the registered estate or by the the proprietor of the registered charge, not being a charge registered before the entry of this restriction is to be registered without a certificate signed by Jeremy George Knight Adams of [address on the side of the Malvern Hills] or his conveyancer that the provisions of clause 3 of an Agreement dated 21 May, 2013 and made between (1) The Borough of Sandwell and (2) Jeremy George Knight Adams have been complied with."
Why have Sandwell refused to disclose this option and clause 3 in particular?
Report paragraph 3.8: The report lists some seemingly vague and minor obligations on the part of the developer including his acquiring of other land to facilitate the development and to "keep the council updated." It must be remembered that JKA paid nearly a quarter of a million pounds for the option and so he must of been confident of forcing the development through.
Question: Dr Alison Knight specifically informed Cabinet last November that JKA had secured other land around Lion Farm to facilitate the development but SMBC are refusing to state what this consists of. Why? Knight is putting this forward that JKA has acted in compliance with the option and so that information should be in the public domain. Further, SMBC say they have not been in communication with JKA his servants or agents and so how has he complied with the obligation to keep the Council updated between May, 2013 and August, 2017? What are the Land Registry title numbers that SMBC employee Knight says are relevant here?
Report paragraph 3.9: The developer paid to the council an option fee when the 2013 agreement was completed.....This fee is an option fee and is not the price paid for the land which would be a separate transaction."
Question: SMBC are refusing to say how the option fee was calculated by whom. Were Nick Bubalo, Neeraj Sharma or David Willetts (three employees heavily involved, incompetently or fraudulently, in numerous corrupt transactions) involved in agreeing the option agreement and/or the fee. What mechanism was put in place to agree the sale price bearing in mind SMBC had blocked the whole of the rest of the world from acquiring this land?
Report paragraph 3.10 (very important): The agreement gave the developer 12 months within which to begin preliminary development steps, with an option to extend for a further 12 months. The agreement also provided for a secondary option agreement to be entered into between the parties, if the developer complied with the obligations set out above. Essentially this meant that the option agreement would be extended beyond the two year period whilst this was finalised. The original report gave a total of two years for the option (12 months plus a further 12 months) but the wording of the legal agreement meant this could be extended. This was agreed with the developer but was not returned to Cabinet until November, 2017. The main terms of the secondary option were included within the 2013 Agreement, but the detailed wording was to be agreed between the parties (and still is to be agreed.)
Question: This is absurd. The original decision of the Council Asset Management Committee (AMLD) was unlawful. But in the infamous two minute long Cabinet meeting of January, 2013 the decision was endorsed as follows:
Resolved:
(1) that the Director - Legal and Governance Services [Neeraj Sharma] be authorised to prepare and complete an option agreement for a period of 12 months from the date of the agreement with Jeremy Knight Adams of Hampton Properties in relation to Lion Farm Playing Fields Oldbury on terms and conditions to be agreed by The Area Director - Regeneration and Economy;
(3) that the Area Director - Regeneration and Economy be authorised to extend the twelve month period referred to in resolution (1) for a further 12 months.
It is extraordinary that a huge multi-million pound deal could be dealt with in this way but the fact remains that neither the AMLD, Cabinet or full Council delegated power for more than 24 months (ie to May, 2015). Thus Sharma and Bubalo had no power delegated to them to extend the option beyond May, 2015 whatever agreement they secretly made with the developer. In the premises, the so-called "supplementary option" was ultra vires their powers and so unlawful.
What appears to be the case here is that SMBC have made a hash of wording the 2013 agreement and JKA is trying to assert his rights hence "but the wording of the legal agreement meant this could be extended." The 2013 option was unlawful and also ultra vires. Have SMBC taken independent legal advice from external solicitors and/or Counsel on the legality of (a) the option and (b) the option after it had lapsed in May, 2015 and had NOT been extended by the AMLD, Cabinet or full Council? If not, why not? Was similar advice taken in respect of the alleged "secondary" option insofar as it was not, in fact, unlawfully part of the 2013 Agreement?
Has JKA his servants or agents threatened SMBC with legal action to enforce any rights he purports to have under the 2013 agreement? If yes, please provide details.
SMBC say there was no communication with JKA, his servants or agents, for several years so please explain how "this was agreed with the developer" ie that the option could be extended beyond 12 months? Who purported to agree the ultra vires extension? How was the agreement made? Was this approved by the AMLD, Cabinet of Full Council?
Report paragraph 3.12: the same points apply as in the questions to paragraph 3.2 above. The delegated power to the officers did not permit the secondary option therefore they had no power to purport to extend time.
(Remember that in 2017 Cradley Speedway expressed an interest in the site and this matter suddenly became active again.)
Report paragraph 3.14: The Council also took several preparatory steps, including acquiring an area of adjoining land, which could be utilised as an access from the Wolverhampton Road for the completed development. This transaction was agreed at the Land and Asset Management Committee on 15th September 2016 and subsequently received by Cabinet on 21st September, 2016.
Question: Messrs Deutsche Bank wanted car parking space next to the Centrica Building and wanted to do a deal with SMBC to swap some land they owned down there. 99% of the report to the Committee is about this and there is no reference to Lion Farm Fields whatsoever. There was a single reference which reads "In return for the Council's land , Deutsche Bank were prepared to transfer to the Council lands which, when added to land already in the Council's ownership, created a development site opportunity". They did an exchange of plot A on the attached plan which went to a Deutsche Bank subsidiary (title MM87111) and took land at B (which appears to be a roadside verge) and C by way of swap. Here is the plan:
https://cmis.sandwell.gov.uk/Cmis5/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=XuM27vKtYBctr58XtpmPKGTLqfRVlyda19Yme9xD6RjIHPIbG0rkyw%3d%3d&rUzwRPf%2bZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3d%3d=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2fLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3d%3d&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&kCx1AnS9%2fpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2bAJvYtyA%3d%3d=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&FgPlIEJYlotS%2bYGoBi5olA%3d%3d=NHdURQburHA%3d&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3d
It is very difficult to see, given that plot C is surrounded by buildings how this could form access to Lion Farm (and it comes directly off the nightmarish Birchley Island). Please state the Land Registry title(s) for plots B and C if they have been registered separately or together. Please state the Land Registry title if they have been subsumed into an existing SMBC owned area. Please state all titles of the other SMBC-owned land that, together with Areas B and C constituted a "development opportunity".
Please state whether there was any communication with JKA his servants or agents prior to the Committee decision to make the swap. If yes, how did the discussions take place, when did they take place and where did they take place? Who was present at the meeting(s) or discussions?
(Incidentally four councillors agreed this deal. One, was Cllr Eling who has been involved in trying to push this bent deal through since at least January, 2013. Joy Edis and the ludicrous Cllr Peter Hughes were there plus guess who? None other than Cllr Bill "The Coward of the County" Gavan ie the Cllr for Langley who has been very vocal in saying to Lion Farm residents that the JKA deal won't happen but who actually voted for a land swap which SMBC NOW say was intended to help the destruction of The Fields!)
Report paragraph 3.15: A retail report was commissioned by the developer which showed the potential for the Lion Farm playing fields in terms of footfall and economic impact.
Question: Has this report been shown to Councillors? If not, why not? Will it now be and will it also be made public? SMBC say they have had no communications with JKA his servants or agents and so how did this come into the hands of SMBC? Was this report dated before of after planning permission was granted for the rival scheme 13 miles away at Cannock which is already now being built? How old is this report noting the significant downturn in economic activity in the retail sector?
Report paragraph 3.16: In 2017.....it was agreed that further cabinet approval was needed to move ahead with the scheme and vary the existing option as appropriate.
Question: Who agreed this? When where and how was this agreement made? The existing option allegedly contained a secondary option (although I say this was unlawful)? Why did the option need to be varied at all? Did SMBC take independent legal advice from external solicitors/counsel as to the need to vary the option? If yes, what was that advice? If it was planned to vary the option why has there been talk of offering a new option? Why does JKA still get preferential treatment to the rest of the whole world? JKA's expertise is in supermarkets and not "high-end designer outlets" and so why are the companies that are expert in that field being locked out of a potential deal (leaving aside for a minute that the deal is bent.) If the option is a new option why is the new Land Disposal protocol not being complied with? Why - if the Council are hell-bent on the destruction of 19ha of green space - are the fields being marketed externally?
(Full council agreed this bent deal AGAIN on 16th January, 2018 despite my representations to a large number of councillors individually. Cllrs Preece and Jaron who were on the Audit Committee last week were two of the Councillors who waived this through as was the bullsh*tting Gavan. Cllr Piper was not present.)
Report paragraph 3.18: The Report (ie the ridiculous one of November 2017 to Cabinet from "Dr" Alison Knight and Cllr Paul Moore) noted that an estimated £200 million investment could be forthcoming and that around 2,000 jobs could be created within the development.
Question: Where did Knight get these figures from? Who supplied them to her and when? What steps did she take to ascertain their accuracy? The figures appear grossly excessive comparable to other retail developments including those where planning permission has been granted by SMBC itself (eg Fountain Retail Park, Oldbury). Why has Sandwell Council press office put these highly dubious figures out to the press without any sort of objective verification?
Report paragraph 3.24: To date there has been no disposal of any of the land by the council. If any disposal does take place the land will be valued in accordance with s.123 Local Government Act 1972, and the 2013 Agreement provides for the land to be revalued after planning permission is granted.
Question: If the (unlawful) 2013 option (an/or the alleged - unlawful - secondary option contained therein) already includes a mechanism to ascertain the eventual consideration why is a further option necessary at all. If planning permission is granted can SMBC refuse to convey the Fields to JKA? If a price cannot be agreed is it then simply a matter for a Court to agree the price and SMBC will be forced to convey the Fields out of public ownership under the 2013 Agreement? Mr Surjit Tour, the highly controversial Monitoring Officer, said on Thursday that the new option had not yet been agreed. Is it the (unlikely) contention by "Dr" Knight and Tour that SMBC will secure a better deal from JKA that they have him in the 2013 agreement? If yes, why has Peter Farrow not commented in this report on the inadequacy of the 2013 agreement?
In Knight's joke November, 2017 "report" she stated the planning application will be submitted by Autumn this year and yet Tour is now saying the second option agreement has not yet been signed. What time scale is now proposed for the planning application to be made following eventual signature of the "new" option?
Whilst not mentioned in the Audit report The Black Country Core Strategy is seeking calls for site submissions by the end of September, 2018. SMBC have submitted a call in respect of Birchley Island but have there been any other communications between SMBC members/officers suggesting an attempt to alter the planning regime for this site ie between them and JKA and them and BCCS?
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - COMMUNITY NEWS - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!
07930 361831
Facebook: Julian Saunders Facebook Group: Lion Farm and Oldbury Skidder
Twitter: @SandwellSkidder
Email: thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
Post: Jules Saunders, 11 Chelworth Road, Birmingham B38 0BG.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.