| Topic: | Not the Conservators' Q&A | |
| Posted by: | John Cameron | |
| Date/Time: | 29/09/14 08:11:00 |
| @ Jonty "it sets out the professional valuation they obtained for the so-called ransom strip:" The A to the Conservators Q sets out no such valuation, it merely reports the number. The valuation itself is not released by the Conservators, and until it is released by the Conservators so that residents may read it, it remains conjecture as to what it says. The access, as drawn in the permission, was a ransom strip. The Conservators Chair David Devons is on the record saying that he had no knowledge of ransom strips. This is a lie, as the Conservators were well aware they had a ransom strip, they clearly chose not to use it. Their decision to sell the school access for £1, is enough evidence to support this. They CHOSE to charge £1 as the school was "free". The more likely explanation was to load the luxury flats cost base to avoid affordable homes by making the viability uneconomic. The Council loaded the flat viability with 100% of the £4.5m acquisition cost. Therefore getting a "free" site for the school. Voodoo accounting. The Conservators' refusal to release the independent valuation doesn't pass the smell test; if they release it in its entirely, (it will include the letter of instruction in the report), clarity as to how the value was arrived at may begin to appear. Drivers Jonas, who prepared the report, should also be made available to explain why there was not an undersale to the tune of millions. Not a lot to ask, really, to help restore the Conservators shredded credibility? Jonty will also have noticed that the Conservators on Friday added a series of Putney Hospital sub committee minutes to their website, in respect of Putney Hospital. Whether this is the PH subcommitee in its entirely is unclear, as the notes cover... 8 meetings with Wandsworth from August 2011 / December 2011 3 meetings with Wandsworth in January 2012 2 meetings without Wandsworth in late 2012 1 meeting without Wandsworth in 2014 The minutes portray a series of meetings from two parties acting as one, to develop the site. There is nothing to indicate that the Conservators had the slightest reservation about what they were doing, no debate among the Conservators about what residents may think, no argument as to the consequences or the legality or advice they needed. There is no detail on independent valuation advice or discussion about the advice they received. Nothing about how or when they voted or decided to sign the easement, to approve the sale, nothing about the negotiations or the threats that we know Wandsworth made. In essence they are team meeting notes on the day to day stuff to do with the site's development. It's no wonder they were reluctant to publish them. The minutes are damning for what they don't say; a lack of rigour in defending the common, a complete disregard for good corporate governance in the way the deal appears to have been signed. Nowhere is there a board minute to be seen that debated the sale, the rights and wrongs, the repercussions. Nada. Or given the very substantial gaps in the minutes ie nothing before 8/11, nothing for the whole of 2013 and a single meeting this year, are the Conservators being highly selective in what they have published. A DUMMIES GUIDE TO WIMBLEDON COMMON GOLF AMENITIES AND CAR PARKS There is one golf course ON Wimbledon Common, shared by two separate golf clubs There is a second golf course, adjacent to Wimbledon Common, which has a private car park ON Wimbledon Common, with a gate and signs that says Private. This car park WAS common, and according to Devons is "a temporary arrangement". Which is a lie, it is the car park of the golf club. AN IDIOTS GUIDE TO RIGHTS OF WAY TO THE HOSPITAL The site is landlocked and there are no formal rights of way registered at HMLR. Without a new formal legal easement granting the rights the site could not be accessed by vehicle, as a matter of right, day in day out. There are no prescriptive rights of way for vehicles; prescriptive rights cannot be applied to a new development. |