| Topic: | Why is the valuation of £675,000 incorrect | |
| Posted by: | Nicholas Evans | |
| Date/Time: | 17/11/17 10:22:00 |
| I said I would comment today on both the RVR and the instructions. Rather than commenting in too much detail, I am going to stick to what I regard as the most important issues: THE INSTRUCTIONS If you read the Daniel Watney QSR (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-dQyEqR1w8kUjNsQmVJZXZqRlE) you will see described in detail the regulations a charity such as WPCC must follow when selling land or rights in land. These are enshrined in the Charities Act. In fact the Charity Commission wrote to the Conservators before the sale to stress that they must follow these exactly. They wrote to the Conservators more than once, and these letters are on file. In their turn, the WPCC after the sale had been made (and questioned by myself and others) wrote to the Charity Commission to confirm that they had complied. Most recently Simon Lee the Chief Executive repeated this in a letter sent to the Commission in January 2015. Of course they did not follow the law. They did not obtain a Qualified Surveyors Report or undertake a period of public consultation. Nor did they advertise the availability of the access rights to possible other purchasers. Daniel Watney were told in the instructions "Leading Counsel's advice has been obtained that Section 8 of the 1871 Act provides the Conservators with an exemption from the need to comply with the Charities Act provisions by virtue of Section 117(3)(a) of the Charities Act 2011." This opinion has never been seen, let alone questioned. But the effect of including a reference to it in the instructions means that Daniel Watney did not need to consider the lack of a QSR and failure to follow the Regulators written instructions. Perhaps another developer would have bought the access rights to the Hospital site and facilitated another development? THE RETROSPECTIVE VALUATION REPORT The valuation stated in para. 6.4 of the RVR is £1,350,000. The surveyor's then go on to debate the possibility that earlier planning permission granted to the WPCT for a health clinic and flats could have been used, and the earlier access agreement applied. There are a considerable number of reasons to question this assumption. Indeed, they have not taken into account that the volume of the clinic was considerably less than the later school, and that the access to enable a necessary turning circle required use of further Common land that had never been used before. Nor do they mention that the earlier planning permission granted in 2010 would have expired three years later. Or that the WPCT was wound up and the earlier scheme abandoned. In my view, however WBC wished to proceed to develop the site they needed the permission of the Conservators, which could have been witheld. The access now built alongside the site absolutely could not have been created without that permission. It is 100% a ransom strip. While there was previous accesses to the site, these do not provide for the turning circle or length of road required. So there would not have been any need to "weigh up" the options. The suggested reduction of 50% in the earlier figure of £1,350,000 is fatally flawed. DOES A HIGHER VALUATION FIGURE EFFECT THE DECISION TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION TO RECOVER LOST INCOME? Would the higher figure - and the earlier valuation of £1.55m from Montagu Evans - mean that the board when considering "further legal action" in February 2017 might have made a different decision? We cannot know. How much would the legal fees be to go after the advisers and Trustees who failed so spectacularly, and who have already spent additional hundreds of thousands in their cover up? Perhaps they might have considered a "no win, no fee" arrangement with another law firm, or at the very least an agreed defined sum for taking on the case and a share of any monies recouped? We will never know, because they have not been open and transparent with us. Nick |