Topic: | Simon Lee and Me (Simon hasn't replied) | |
Posted by: | John Cameron | |
Date/Time: | 18/10/14 12:38:00 |
Dear Simon WPCC FOI requests follow up I wrote to you on 9 October, (copy attached) in respect of a number of potentially serious issues. These included the Conservators’ deliberate suppression my FOI request, the undersale of the access to the school for £1 and the failure to produce board reports and minutes. I instructed you to bring this letter to the attention of the Trustees last Monday, however as board meetings are now largely held “in camera”, I have no idea if you have or not. A copy is attached for reference. You have previously confirmed that further information will be made available. To summarise, I require the Conservators to provide the following data to me without further delay 1. PUTNEY HOSPITAL - BOARD REPORT / BOARD AUTHORISATIONS Please supply copies of the board papers describing the transaction and board minutes of the necessary approvals sought before entering into the agreements. 2. UNDERSALE OF THE ACCESS TO THE SCHOOL The Conservators lack of cooperation by suppressing the independent valuation is untenable. The access land to the school was sold at a peppercorn and to the financial detriment of the Charity. The access land to the luxury flats was sold for a fraction of its ransom value, which ran to several million pounds. Both of these sales appear to amount to an abuse of the Trustee’s fiduciary duty to the Charity. I require you to provide the independent valuation without further delay. 3. ROYAL WIMBLEDON GOLF CLUB AGREEMENTS David Devons’ statement that the arrangement is “temporary” is a lie. The land was formerly common and is therefore protected by the 1871 Act from enclosure. The RWGC occupy the land as their exclusive car park and self evidently this is now a permanent arrangement. I require you to send the agreements between the Conservators and the RWGC, as well as all relevant correspondence, without further delay. 4. PUTNEY HOSPITAL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES You confirmed that minutes of three meetings (2 September 2013, 15 January 2014, 29 April 2014) were being withheld at the request of Wandsworth. I note that two of these have now been added to the website, but with substantial paragraphs redacted. What do the redacted paragraphs refer to and why do the Conservators think it acceptable to redact them? The minutes of 15 January were to discuss “two issues” which both appear to be redacted. The minutes then go on to confirm the Conservators agreement to amending (by way of a side letter) the Deed of Easement, at the request of the Council’s contractors,. Given that the Easements were the subject of ongoing legal proceedings at the time, this confirms that the Conservators and the Council were clearly acting as one and colluding to frustrate the legal action. The Conservators were fully aware that there was substantial opposition (over 1,100 objections) to the sale of common land and over intensive development. Nevertheless the Conservators pursued the sale of common land, agreeing to the changes, secretly renegotiating the agreement and then hiding it. It’s no wonder the Conservators didn’t want to publish the minutes. Please provide the board paper that discussed the amendments together with the board minutes that approved the side letter, which amended the easement. I also note from the newly published minutes that the Conservators agreed to waive the punitive fees for Wandsworth’s continued hoarding of the site. Why were the punitive fees waived, given they were put in place to be punitive. What was the quantum of the punitive fees that the Conservators would have received if they had not agreed to waive fees they were due? What is the nominal fee that the Conservators agree to? The Conservators duty is not to Wandsworth, it is to the Charity and only the Charity. It is now evident that the Charity is going to be deprived of substantial payments by Wandsworth. Why did the Conservators choose to forego the punitive fees of the agreement? What did they get in return? Please provide the board paper that discussed the decision to waive the punitive fees and the board minutes that approved the decision. The minutes of 29 April have substantial redacted paragraphs, what is redacted and why? The note states that the Council and the Conservators are to appoint an “independent representative to ensure that the landscaping and environmental aspects of the detailed design were being sensitively interpreted”. The “independent role” would assist with “monitoring the onsite construction activities on a day to day basis” and “represent the Conservators at project meetings” It was agreed that (name redacted) would be “ideal” for this “independent strategic role” . The note then goes on to say that the Woodland Management Plan needed to considered as it “formed part of the contract with Durkan” as well as “the school provider”. The note confirms that it difficult to agree the landscaping detail, but that the contractor would landscape the site to an “acceptable standard”. The woodland in question is the sole responsibility of the Conservators, but it appears they are now handing it to Durkan as the contractor to landscape, but without having any idea of what is envisaged. Please provide the missing minutes from 2 September 2013 and 3 June 2014 (referred to in 29 April note). Please treat my requests above for further information as formal requests under FOI regulations. 5. OUTSTANDING FOI INFORMATION The outstanding information, previously requested and that I still require under FOI can be summarised; 1. Independent valuation of the access land. Please provide copies of all notes, minutes and correspondence between the Conservators and Drivers Jonas, relating to the WPCC’s instructions and valuation of the site. Please also provide copies of all notes, minutes and correspondence between the Conservators, Drivers Jonas, Wandsworth Council and Wandsworth’s surveyors in respect to the negotiations you refer to. 2. Minutes of Putney Hospital Subcommittee January 2011 – August 2014 All the outstanding minutes which are being suppressed by the Conservators and Wandsworth, ie those not already published on the website 3. Minutes of the meetings from October 2011 to January 2012 between the Conservators and Wandsworth Copies of all correspondence between the Conservators and WBC in respect of the minutes being released, as well as a copy of all the minutes. 4. Minutes of the meetings between Wandsworth, WPCT and the Conservators July 2010 – January 2012 Copies of all correspondence between the Conservators and WBC in respect of the minutes being released, as well as a copy of all the minutes. 5. Risk assessment for the sale of the school access for £1 All data, notes of discussions, emails, board minutes and so on in respect of selling the access for £1. Specifically this under sale must have been approved by the Trustees of the Charity, to whom the Trustees have a fiduciary duty. Please supply all documentation held in respect of the sale. 6. Copies of the legal advice provided to the Conservators in respect of the sale of school access for £1 Copies of all correspondence between the Conservators and Gregsons or other advisors in respect of the advice, and specifically why it is privileged. 7. The Conservators board minutes authorising the sale of the easement for £1 Please supply the board minutes without further delay. 8. Valuation of Stag Lane All data and communications in respect of the Stag Lane valuation, between Drives Jonas, the Conservators and the vendor, Wandsworth Council 9. Correspondence with the Charity commission relating to the sale of the easement at Putney Hospital All correspondence between the Conservators and Gregsons or other legal advisors in respect of the refusal to disclose the correspondence requested. 10. Risk assessment and management documents in respect of the sale of the easement at Putney Hospital from July 2010 to July 2014 All correspondence with Leading Counsel or your solicitors in respect of Leading Counsel advice and as to why it is privileged. I look forward to an early response Regards John |